Nadir Ahmed Declares: Shabir Ally Is a "Dummy"!!!

In a recent post, I described Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally. Nadir understands that Shabir is one of the most respected Muslim debaters in the world. Yet Nadir wants to be Islam's greatest debater. So how does he go about this? Does he study carefully, earning the respect of Christians and Muslims alike? No. Nadir attacks his fellow Muslims, hoping that this will help him rise to fame. As I showed in the former article, Nadir has said that Shabir Ally is weak-minded, and that debating Shabir Ally is like debating someone's grandma!

Yet Nadir isn't letting up in his war against Shabir. A couple of hours ago, Nadir called in to James White's radio program and called Shabir a "dummy"! Would anyone listening to Shabir Ally claim that he is a dummy? (Click here to listen to the show.)

This program was quite informative, as it evolved into a brief, informal debate on the textual integrity of the Qur'an. It's amazing to see Nadir try to reinterpret clear passages from Al-Bukhari!

James White Responds to Zakir Naik: Part Two

This video is instructive. James shows a clip from a Q&A session in which Zakir Naik attempts to answer a question about whether God could become a man. Naik's answer contains virtually no substance, yet the Muslim audience is obviously mesmerized by his rhetoric. Typical! (Click here for part one.)

The Deuteronomy Deductions

Here's an article I wrote recently for Answering Islam:

"The Deuteronomy Deductions: Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was a False Prophet"

To grasp the force of the proofs, you'll need to read the article. However, I can give you the gist of the argument here. Consider the following quotations, one from the Bible, and one from Islam's History of al-Tabari.

"But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak . . . that prophet shall die." ~GOD (Deuteronomy18:20)

"I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken." ~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)

According to the first quotation, a prophet who delivers a message that does not come from God is not a true prophet. In the second quotation, Muhammad says that he has delivered a revelation that did not come from God!

The passage in al-Tabari refers to the infamous "Satanic Verses"--one of the most embarrassing moments in Muslim history. According to numerous ancient Muslim sources, Muhammad delivered verses that came, not from God, but from Satan. (For more on this, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses.")

One might object that Muslims typically believe that the Bible has been corrupted, and that a criterion taken from Deuteronomy is therefore irrelevant. On the contrary! The verse is Deuteronomy 18:20. Those familiar with Muslim apologetics will recognize this as the verse that follows Deuteronomy 18:18-19, one of the most frequently quoted passages among Muslims. This is the passage where God declares that he will send another prophet like Moses. Muslims appeal to this as their strongest biblical support for the prophethood of Muhammad. Yet, if they're going to appeal to 18:18-19 as inspired, surely they cannot reject 18:20!

But if Muslims are stuck with 18:20, they must either admit that Muhammad was a false prophet, or they must show that Muhammad never delivered the Satanic Verses. Muslims will obviously opt for the latter course, but they can only do so by throwing out nine of their own sources! Throwing out so many of their own sources, however, simply serves as proof that Muslims are not examining their records objectively. Instead, they are picking and choosing the texts that make them feel best.

The Debate Results Are in! Sam Shamoun Wins over Nadir Ahmed by a Landslide!

Prior to Sam’s debate with Nadir—“Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”—audience members were given a questionnaire. After the debate, more than fifty attendees answered the questions.

Interestingly, the Muslims at the debate were so upset by Nadir’s performance that all but one refused to answer questions concerning who won the debate! Christians, on the other hand, were quite eager to offer an assessment.

Below, I have listed the questions attendees were asked about the debate, along with the average scores of Sam and Nadir. The results weren’t even close!

On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being the least and 10 the greatest):

How convincing was Nadir Ahmed in presenting that Islam is a Religion of Peace? Nadir scored a 2.6 on a scale from 1 to 10. One person declined to answer this question.

How convincing was Sam Shamoun that Islam is a Religion of Terrorism? Sam scored an 8.7 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How would you rate Nadir Ahmed’s debate skills? Nadir scored a 3.7 on a scale from 1 to 10. One person declined to respond.

How would you rate Sam Shamoun’s debate skills? Sam scored a 9.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How faithful was Nadir Ahmed to staying on the topic, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Nadir scored a 3.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How faithful was Sam Shamoun to staying on the topic, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Sam scored a 9.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

Of course, not even these devastating results will change Nadir’s absurd proclamation that he won the debate. The Muslims at the debate were completely disappointed; the Christians shouted in triumph. Yet Nadir has tried everything imaginable to change the outcome of the debate. He has tried to alter the topic (both during the debate, when he tried to divert the issue to Christianity, and after the debate, when he claimed that the real topic of the debate was the views of Pastor George Saieg); he has claimed that the terms of the debate were unfair; he has even come on this site under a false name and praised himself for his performance!

Yet those of us who know Nadir Ahmed have come to expect this sort of thing. Nadir claims to be the only true Muslim debater in America, despite the fact that he has no credentials, insults and threatens his opponents (sometimes calling them child molesters or insulting their families), attacks his fellow Muslims, and, in general, acts like a complete child. Shouldn’t we expect such a person to claim victory even when he is utterly defeated?

Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally

Nadir Ahmed has challenged practically every Christian apologist in the country to debate him. The reactions from Christian apologists are nearly always the same. They point out that Nadir has no credentials, that he insults his opponents (even their families!), that his arguments are awful, that he has no scholarly background, that he accuses his opponents of being pedophiles, and that even Muslims generally don’t know who he is. Christian apologists also typically say that they would rather debate reputable Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi, and Zakir Naik.

Nadir’s response here is enlightening. He boldly proclaims that he is the only true Muslim debater in America, and that anyone who refuses to debate him is running from him. Sadly, in his efforts to rise to fame, Nadir often resorts to insulting his fellow Muslim apologists—even Shabir Ally! Even more absurd is that Nadir claims that Muslims prefer him over Shabir Ally!

For instance, Nadir recently went to James White’s church to challenge him to a debate. When Shabir Ally came up in the conversation, Nadir claimed that Muslims would rather see him debate than Shabir. James said that the Muslims of Shabir’s Islamic Information and Dawah Center might disagree with this; however, Nadir claimed that even the Muslims of Shabir’s Dawah Center are more interested in seeing Nadir Ahmed! (James also said that Nadir spent a great deal of time in their discussion attacking Shabir Ally. Click here to listen to James White’s discussion of this incident with Nadir.)

But it gets worse. I have an email in which Nadir claims that Shabir is weak-minded, and that Muslims do not support him. Nadir said:

And one more point which needs to be made clear - I am the ONLY Muslim apologist in America. Besides me there is none else. Therefore, since I am the only Muslim apologist, then if one of these learned men in the Bible refuse to debate me, then that raises a lot of questions. I am the only Muslim in America who has presented an [sic] compelling case that Islam is true based on the Archaelogical [sic], prophetic and scientfic [sic] evidence, and am prepared to debate and defend my premise. p.s. people like Shabir Ally (from Canada) are not Muslim apologists! they dont [sic] debate Islam. They only want to debate the Bible and show the errors in the book. But a Muslim apologist is one who's [sic] main focus is to debate Islam - debates the evidence for Islam, debates the case for the prophethood of Muhammed(P)... etc. Btw, Muslims do not support Shabir Ally, only Christians do, because he is weak minded.

I find it rather amazing that the only Muslim apologist in America can’t spell “archaeological” or “scientific.”

But Nadir didn’t leave it at that. After a recent debate between Nabeel Qureshi and Sami Zaatari, Nadir claimed that Shabir is a child, and that debating Shabir is like debating a grandmother! (Click here to listen to the discussion.) According to Nadir:

Our perception is that you guys are afraid to debate Examinethetruth.com, and therefore you run after people like Shabir Ally, people—kids, you know, like people’s grandma, and you try to debate them.

Why would Nadir say these things about one of the greatest Muslim apologists of our time? My personal view is that Nadir doesn’t really care about Islam. Instead, he cares about getting attention for himself. He wants the spotlight, and if Muslims get in the way, Nadir will try to trample on them.

So why do Christians prefer to debate Shabir Ally? Shabir is far more intelligent than Nadir. Shabir is a much better speaker. He’s immensely more knowledgeable. He acts like an adult, not like a child. Shabir outstrips Nadir in every relevant way.

How, then, does Nadir get any attention at all? Well, some people enjoy watching loud-mouth, arrogant debaters. Hence, Nadir does have some fans. But this hardly justifies Nadir’s treatment of his fellow Muslims.

Since Nadir has made some very specific claims about Shabir, about the members of his Dawah Center, and about Muslims in general, I think it’s time for an investigation. To begin, I will contact the Dawah Center to see whether they really support Nadir over Shabir. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Nadir Ahmed’s First Positive “Review”: Did This Guy Even Watch the Debate???

Nadir Ahmed has been contacting numerous people, trying to get some positive reviews of his debate with Sam Shamoun. Apparenly, someone finally wrote a review that he likes. The amazing thing is that the reviewer, Kaiwaig, either didn’t watch the debate, or didn’t pay attention at all!

Kaiwaig talks about the debate itself very little. After vaguely mentioning the debate, he spends most of his time trying to prove that Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately, Kaiwaig obviously hasn’t studied the history of Islam—especially early Muslim commentaries and the Sira literature. Kaiwaig went so far as to say that the “Muslim method” is to distribute information about Islam and to let people decide for themselves! Has he read the Qur’an? Did he consider the verses presented by Sam in the debate? Has he read Ibn Ishaq, or Ibn Sad, or Al-Tabari? Obviously not.

But we can go further. Kaiwaig points to the “no compulsion in religion” verse in the Qur’an (2:256), which was addressed by Sam in the debate. Amazingly, Kaiwaig tells his viewers that Sam’s response to this verse was to point to modern day Muslims as proof that Islam is a religion of violence! Yet anyone who actually watched the debate knows that Sam did no such thing. In fact, Sam specifically said (over and over again) that he would not point to modern acts of violence by Muslims to defend his case. How could anyone who watched the debate miss this???

Sam’s answer was clear. The peaceful, tolerant passages, delivered by Muhammad when he was outnumbered in Mecca, were later abrogated when Islam took control. Yet Kaiwaig’s viewers will never know Sam’s real answer, since practically everything he said about Sam’s position was wrong. We can only conclude that Kaiwaig never even watched the debate, and that he got his information from skimming some of Nadir’s articles.

What’s even more interesting is that Nadir lists this as the first review of his debate! For the record, if I were to ask someone to post a review of my debate, and when they gave me the review it was obvious that they hadn’t even watched the debate, I would ask them to take back their review until they were ready to be more accurate. But not Nadir!

To see whether I am correct or not, please watch Kaiwaig’s review after watching the debate. This is hilarious!

Nadir Ahmed on “Dirty Tricks”: Part Two—the Tu Quoque Fallacy

Nadir Ahmed has accused Christians of forcing him to accept unfair debate terms in his recent debate with Sam Shamoun. As I showed here, the debate terms were entirely fair and reasonable, which means that Nadir was simply trying to justify his embarrassing performance by falsely accusing Christians of deception.

As I will show in this post, it was Nadir, not Sam, who resorted to “Dirty Tricks” (as Nadir calls them).

Prior to his debate with Sam Shamoun ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"), Nadir Ahmed agreed that he would not go off-topic by criticizing the Bible. However, when the debate started, he began attacking the Bible very quickly. Soon, the Bible became Nadir’s primary focus—in a debate about Islam!

It was obvious to everyone that Nadir was simply trying to draw attention away from Islam and to put Christians on the defensive. Yet if this was his goal, one wonders why he agreed to debate a Muslim topic in the first place.

Nadir’s tactic was a perfect example of the Tu Quoque fallacy. The Tu Quoque fallacy occurs when instead of answering an objection, a person points his finger back at his questioner and says, “Well, you’ve got problems too!”

This fallacy is quite common among Muslims. When a person asks a Muslim, “Aren’t you shocked by all the innocents killed in the name of Allah,” it is quite common for the Muslim to reply, “What about all of the innocents killed by the West?” As if this answers the question!

To give another example, suppose I were to tell you a vicious lie, and you realized that I had lied to you. “David, you just lied to me,” you respond. “Now explain yourself!” “Well,” I reply, “You’ve lied too.” As if this makes it okay for me to lie!

And that’s why this approach is fallacious. The question of whether you have lied is irrelevant to the question of whether I have lied. Whether innocents have been killed by the West is irrelevant to whether Muslims should be killing innocents.

Thus, in a debate titled “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” it makes no sense for the Muslim debater to argue that Christianity is a religion of violence. Indeed, if the evidence proved conclusively that Christianity is the most violent, bloody religion in history (silly, isn’t it!), this would not help us answer the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Hence, it was disturbing to see Nadir place so much emphasis on Christianity and the Bible in his debate about Islam. Indeed, on his webpage devoted to the debate, Nadir claims that there were five “Key Topics” of the debate: (1) “Islam condemns terrorism,” (2) “Bible accepts terrorism,” (3) “Challenge to Christianity,” (4) “The 4 arguments of why Islam is a religion of peace,” and (5) “Why Bible terror is relevant for this debate.”

Notice that, in Nadir’s mind, three out of five “Key Topics” in his debate about Islam revolve around Christianity!

However, Nadir has made an interesting (although horribly flawed) case for why the Bible was relevant in his debate with Sam. Nadir argues that since Muhammad came to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity (!!!), Islam must be a religion of peace.

Of course, it is obvious to every informed viewer that Muhammad didn’t come to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity (!!!), since Christianity doesn’t teach genocide and terrorism. In Christianity, we are commanded to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to never return evil for evil (ever heard of the “New Covenant?”). Hence, a person who looks at all of this and says, “Christianity teaches violence and bloodshed” is obviously biased against the truth.

It is also ridiculous to claim that Muhammad came to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity. When did Muhammad claim this? I challenge Nadir to show us that Muhammad claimed that this was his purpose. If Nadir cannot produce such proof, he is guilty of ascribing false motives to his prophet.

But let’s lay such issues aside and examine Nadir’s claim on logical grounds. The fact remains: Even if Christianity were the most violent religion on earth, this would have nothing to do with whether Islam is a religion of peace (even if it were true that Muhammad came to confront Christian violence).

To see why this is so, think about Nadir’s argument, which goes something like this: “Christianity teaches genocide. But Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to commit genocide. Thus, Muhammad was coming to confront Christian genocide. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.”

To see why this is completely flawed, let us consider two analogies. Suppose the debate topic had been “Was Muhammad Polygamous?” In the debate, Sam would have provided numerous sources, proving that Muhammad had at least nine wives at one time. Sam would have concluded, “Thus, Muhammad was polygamous.” Nadir would have argued differently. He would have argued thus: “In the Bible, Solomon is said to have had 700 wives! But Muhammad came to confront this Christian [!!!] polygamy! Muhammad made it very clear that no one can marry this many wives. Therefore, Muhammad was monogamous!”

The fallacy here should be obvious. Even if Solomon had far more wives than Muhammad, this wouldn’t mean that Muhammad was monogamous. And even if Muhammad had come to confront this “Christian” (!!!) polygamy, this still would have nothing to do with whether Muhammad was polygamous or not. Hence, Solomon and the Bible would be entirely irrelevant to such a debate!

Consider another analogy. Suppose there were two religions: Religion X and Religion Y. Religion X teaches its followers that it is right to violently torture all non-members as much as possible. Religion Y comes along and agrees that it is right to torture non-members, but with one exception. According to Religion Y, “It is wrong to torture old ladies, even if they are not members of our religion.” What would be the difference between these two religions? One tortures all non-members, while the other tortures all non-members except old ladies.

Now suppose there were a debate titled, “Is Religion Y a Religion of Peace?” If he gets his logical training from Nadir Ahmed, the defender of Religion Y would argue: “We don’t torture old ladies. Our prophet came to confront the practice of old lady torturing! Thus, Religion Y is a religion of peace!”

But would this have anything to do with whether Religion Y is a religion of peace? Nothing whatsoever! Indeed, it would be impossible for any rational person to look at a religion that advocates torturing all non-members except old ladies and conclude that it is a religion of peace.

The point here is that even if Religion Y were more peaceful (comparatively) than Religion X, this would not mean that Religion Y is peaceful. Similarly, even if Islam were more peaceful than Christianity (doesn’t that just sound silly!), this would not make Islam a religion of peace.

Therefore, Christianity was entirely irrelevant to the debate between Sam and Nadir. They both agreed to debate whether Islam is a religion of peace. Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, etc., had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The fact that Nadir kept pointing his finger at Christianity, then, was an admission that he could not defend his religion without resorting to fallacious debate tricks. And the fact that, after the debate, he has tried so desperately to defend his fallacious reasoning shows that he will do anything to justify his weak, flawed arguments.

James White Responds to Zakir Naik

In this short video, James White points out an important problem in Christian-Muslim dialog. Muslim arguments against the Deity of Christ are often so weak that Christians don't feel the need to rebut them. As an example, James presents some of Naik's arguments against Christ's Deity. James goes on to show that even though Naik horribly misrepresents the texts, Christians need to respond.

More Deception from Nadir Ahmed

For those who have watched the debate and read Nadir's recent comments here on the blog, there is an obvious inconsistency. In the debate, Nadir said repeatedly that what Muslims do in the world today (persecute people, terrorize innocents, etc.) was not relevant to the debate. Nadir reasoned that the topic of the debate was whether Islam is a religion of peace, not whether Muslims today are kind.

Sam Shamoun agreed with Nadir. Hence, Sam focused on early Muslim material (the Qur'an and the Hadith) as well as on the interpretations of Muslim scholars (such as Ibn Kathir). Nadir objected (unsuccessfully) to some of Sam's claims; however, it is clear that Sam and Nadir agreed that the actions of Muslims in the world today were not important for the debate.

Thus, I was absolutely shocked when Nadir claimed in the comment section that "This debate was about Osama Bin Laden killing 3000 Americans in the name of Allah and Islam."

I pointed out to Nadir that he had blatantly contradicted himself. In the debate, he claimed that what Osama Bin Laden and other Muslims do is irrelevant to the topic. After the debate, he claims that this was the main issue!

Apparently, Nadir will say anything to justify his poor performance. What is most disturbing, however, is what he did next. In an effort to go on the offensive, Nadir emailed more than 40 Christians and Muslims and said that (since I agree that modern terrorism wasn't relevant to the debate) I do not take terrorism seriously! Here's the email:

There are some Christians who are insinuating that for the debate on Is Islam a religion of peace, pact of Umar, salafism are more important to the topic than 3000 people dying on 911 in the name of Islam, I guess that is not important enough? ...

I find this to be very offensive... so you guys need to be careful with what you are saying. I don't take this stuff as a joke.

Thanks,
Nadir Ahmed

Since Muhammad told his followers to listen to Umar, and since Umar was one of the "Rightly Guided Caliphs" as well as one of Muhammad's most trusted companions, his dealings with non-Muslims and his interpretations of Muhammad's teachings are completely relevant. As for Salafi scholars, their views are relevant for two reasons. First, scholarly views are always relevant, since scholars spend their lives interpreting texts and therefore often speak from knowledge. This doesn't mean that we should accept the views of scholars uncritically; however, scholarly works are obviously relevant. Second, Sam used Salafi teachings as evidence that Nadir was practicing Taqiyya. Nadir is a Salafi, but he backed away from his own sect and claimed that he is merely a Muslim. Sam rightly noted that this was proof that Nadir is trying to mislead his listeners. This is relevant because it calls Nadir's reliability into question. (From where I sit, Nadir has no credibility at all.)

To sum up, Nadir claimed, quite clearly, that modern terrorism was not relevant to the debate. Sam agreed with him, and did not pursue the matter in the debate. After the debate, Nadir claimed victory because Sam didn't address the issue of modern terrorism! Since I agreed that modern terrorism wasn't relevant to the debate, Nadir is now emailing person after person, saying that I don't take terrorism seriously!

Apparently, Nadir thinks that this will upset me. But it doesn't at all. I've come to expect this from Nadir. And besides, I find his behavior absolutely hilarious. He is obviously becoming quite desperate.

The only question remaining is this: "Would anyone buy a used car from Nadir Ahmed?"

Nadir Ahmed on “Dirty Tricks”: Part One

Once again Nadir Ahmed has attempted to defend his poor performance in his recent debate with Sam Shamoun. Nadir has written an article titled “Dirty Tricks: The Unfair Terms of the Debate I Was Forced to Accept.” When I read the article, the first thing I noticed was that Nadir didn’t list these “unfair” debate terms. This led me to suspect that the terms of the debate weren’t unfair at all, and that Nadir was simply trying to account for his loss by accusing Christians of unfair rules.

But I wanted to make sure. So I obtained a list of the “unfair” rules of the debate, which have been available all along here. Here’s the list:

Brief Debate Schedule

1- Nadir: 25-minute Opening Speech
2- Sam: 25-minute Opening Speech
3- Nadir: 10-minute Preceding Speech
4- Sam: 10-minute Preceding Speech
5- Nadir: 10-minute Preceding Speech
6- Sam: 10-minute Preceding Speech
7- Nadir: 5-minute Concluding Speech
8- Sam: 5-minute Concluding Speech
Nadir and Sam: 20 minutes Q&A Session

Regulations

1. Absolutely NO personal attacks. Either side must only criticize the other’s point of view, not the personal character or style of the other. Such tactics are not only in poor taste, they are also logical fallacies (Ad Hominem).
2. Each side MUST abide by the debate schedule and rules as delineated above. This debate needs to maintain order. There will be a moderator present to keep the time limits and debate rules. You will be notified 5 minutes and/or 1 minute before the end of each speech. You will NOT have any extra time.
3. The topic of the debate is, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” No one is allowed to diverge from this topic. Each side is responsible to answer the question and why he believes his answer. You may offer counter arguments to your opposition and answer their criticisms, but you may NOT argue against other issues within either camp’s worldview. For example, we do not want to talk about whether or not Jesus is God.
4. Both sides need to be 1 hour earlier to the auditorium before the debate. If filming is going to take place, then those filming must also be 1 hour early.
5. There will be a moderator present at the debate. The moderator’s main task is to keep each side following the regulations and time constraints. If either party delineates from the rules or schedule listed above, the moderator will stop him and warn him in front of the audience. The time it takes to get the violating party to be warned will count against his total speech time. If the party persists in violating the regulations, he may be disqualified from the debate.

Is there anything unfair here? No personal attacks, stick to the schedule, stick to the topic, arrive early, listen to the moderator. These are rules that would be obvious to any debater.

Careful consideration reveals that Nadir has given us a double-dose of Taqiyya. First, he agreed to these rules, and yet he violated them during the debate. He attacked Sam personally and repeatedly went off-topic. Why would he agree to these rules, knowing that he would violate them when on-stage? Taqiyya! Welcome to Islam.

Second, Nadir has tried to deceive his readers into believing that he was “forced” to accept “unfair” debate rules. Consider a quotation from his article, with a brief comment from me. Notice that he calls the rules a “crime”!

Let’s pause for a second – you might be wondering, “What fool would agree to such terms!!!”. [Wood’s response: What terms, Nadir? You haven’t even listed the terms, because you know that they’re completely fair!] Well… I would say that I am that fool. Because it was obvious that their actions were a clear sign of desperation and fear and I will not allow them to get away with their crime.

This is an obvious attempt to justify his inability to overcome Sam’s arguments. But three facts remain. First, Nadir lost the debate (miserably). Second, he tried to deceive Christians by agreeing to the rules and then violating them. Third, he is trying to deceive both Christians and Muslims by accusing the debate organizers of “unfair” play. This is simply awful. We can see why Nadir has no credibility in the debate world.

Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya

In his debate with Nadir, Sam Shamoun made an important point about Taqiyya (the Islamic doctrine that Muslims are permitted to lie for various reasons). During his reign as prophet of Islam, Muhammad exhibited three stages in his dealings with non-Muslims. In the first stage, Muhammad was horribly outnumbered in Mecca, and couldn’t have won a fight. Thus, he preached peace and tolerance. In the second stage, Muhammad moved to Medina, and he had many dedicated followers who were willing to fight for him. At this point, Muslims fought defensive wars, robbed caravans, and assassinated people. In the third stage, Islam was dominant and powerful. Once Islam had control, non-Muslims were forced to submit and were subjected to humiliation or death.

Muslim countries are currently in stage three; hence, in Muslim countries, Christians and Jews often live in fear and are not permitted to worship or preach freely. Pagans are practically non-existent, because they are treated even more harshly.

In the West, however, Muslims are in stage one. They are outnumbered and can’t hope to win a violent struggle. It isn’t surprising, then, to find Western Muslims preaching peace and tolerance, just as Muhammad did when he was in the minority.

Nevertheless, there are two groups of Muslims preaching tolerance in the West. First, many Muslims have grown up with Western values, and they prize freedom of speech and freedom of religion just as their Western neighbors do. Since these Muslims believe that peace and tolerance are to be prized, they assume that Muhammad must have prized peace and tolerance. Hence, when these Muslims read the Qur’an and the Hadith, they are drawn to Muhammad’s teachings from the early Meccan period, and they ignore his more radical teachings. In other words, these Muslims really believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

But there is a second group of Western Muslims, who know that as soon as Islam becomes dominant, freedom will be eradicated, and non-Muslims will be forced to submit. However, they understand that they are outnumbered at the present time, and that the West values peace and tolerance. Thus, these Muslims preach peace and tolerance, knowing that violence will eventually come. That is, this group doesn’t really believe that Islam is a religion of peace. They are simply deceiving people until Islam becomes dominant (i.e. they are practicing Taqiyya).

Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether a Muslim falls into the first category or the second. Yet occasionally we find proof that Muslim calls for peace and tolerance are hollow (e.g. when we learn that CAIR has known ties to terrorists).

The question I would like to address is whether Nadir Ahmed really believes in peace or whether he is practicing Taqiyya. In his debate with Sam Shamoun, Nadir argued that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Muslims are permitted to fight in order to stop oppression, but not for much else. Does he really believe this? Not at all! And we know this because some of Nadir’s fellow Muslims have posted some of his emails.

Consider two such emails, posted on the Muslim website “Answering Christianity.” Keep in mind that these emails were both written by Nadir Ahmed, who preaches that Islam is a peaceful religion. (Note: I have covered some of Nadir’s foul language with ***.)

First Email:

Osama, you f***ing kaffir.. how dare you insult our Prophet(P) by saying he has a mental disease wallahi, if I ever meet you on the street.... youre done.... and it WILL happen. watch your back. and as for your gay lover Saami, the fact that you support this piece of s**t osama.. the same holds true for you. I have ways and means... I promise u. I have made a screen shot of your defamation of our Prophet(P), so you dont try to hide your kuffar. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Notice what we have here. Osama has attempted to respond to a difficult fact about Muhammad, namely, that he was the victim of black magic. (For more on this, see my article “A Bewitched Prophet?”) Nadir disagrees with Osama’s view, so what does he do? Does he attempt to reason with him? Does he present evidence to show that Osama is wrong? No. Instead, he threatens Osama with physical violence!

We see the a similar phenomenon in another email from Nadir.

Second Email:

osama watch your back

you f***ing kaffir.. you think you can arm bar me? lol ill be the one breaking your elbow, then, I'll triangle choke you and force you to take back your insults against Prophet Muhammed(P) .... then I'll ground and pound your ugly face. It's going to be great.. Ill pass your guard in matter of minutes and mount you... and Ill slamm my fist right in your eye socket, and I'll say.. "what did you say about our Prophet(P)?" "who is old and stupid now Osama?" Let's do it this weekend. You can come down to my ju jitzu gym. Ill arrange it with the fellas down here. or did you want me to come up to your gym ? This is JIHAD. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed www.ExamineTheTruth.com

Notice that after Nadir has threatened Osama, he adds “This is JIHAD.” So, according to Nadir, Jihad is attacking a person physically for holding different views.

Is this what he said during his debate with Sam? Certainly not. During the debate, Nadir said that Muslims are permitted to fight in order to end oppression. But Osama has not oppressed Nadir. All he has done is express a view with which Nadir disagrees. And Nadir responds with a call for Jihad—a violent attack against Osama.

Interestingly, Nadir wanted to arrange a physical confrontation after this exchange. We should take note of how Nadir’s partner at Examine the Truth, Jalal Abualrub, reacted when he heard that two followers of the “Religion of Peace” were going to fight to settle their differences. Did he attempt to reconcile the two apologists? Not at all. Rather, he advised Nadir to have the fight recorded as evidence that Nadir had won the fight! (See here for details.)

All of this shows that Nadir really believes that Islam allows him to physically assault others because of what they believe and say. Why, then, did he claim during the debate that Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to attack people because of their beliefs? Nadir is practicing Taqiyya here. He knows the truth, but he doesn’t want his listeners to know it.

Perhaps even more interesting is that Muslims do not openly rebuke Nadir more often. If a Christian apologist were going around threatening people with physical violence, Christians everywhere would rebuke him and let him know that Christianity does not tolerate such behavior. But Nadir is known for threatening people, and yet there is no Muslim outcry, just as there is no significant Muslim outcry over the Islamic violence around the world. We must wonder, then, why so many followers of the “Religion of Peace” simply do not care that their brothers and sisters are killing in the name of Allah.

Nadir Ahmed Exposed! (Textual Criticism and Taqiyya)

Nearly everyone who has watched the recent debate between Sam Shamoun and Nadir Ahmed thinks that Nadir lost horribly. Nadir, however, is doing everything in his power to make people think otherwise. He even came on this blog and posted a comment from an imaginary viewer named "TR," saying that Sam had been defeated. The evidence proves deception on Nadir's part.

Here is what "TR" wrote:

I think the debate was one-sided. Nadir did a great job by posing 4 arguments which went unchallenged through out the debate. Anyone who gets a chance to hear the debate will realize that Sam could not quote one single verse from the Quran or the Hadith which promotes genocide or terrorism. He instead resorted to quoting scholarly opinions, "possible intentions" of the prophet and showing that muslims could be unfriendly people(sam's interpretation). All of this had nothing to do with explicit evidence showing genocide or terrorism(i.e. 1 samuel 15:3)

Good job Nadir, Must hear debate!

And here is my response:

TR,

A friend just emailed me to inform me that someone named "TR" had left a comment saying that Nadir won the debate, and that "TR" happens to sound exactly like Nadir Ahmed.

So I decided to do a little textual criticism, TR. Reading your short comment, a textual critic will note four peculiarities, which, taken together, can help identify a writer. The first two may be seen in your claim that "Nadir did a great job by posing 4 arguments which went unchallenged through out the debate."

First, most people (though not all) would write "four arguments" rather than "4 arguments," so we know that you typically write the number rather than the word. Interestingly, Nadir Ahmed often does the same thing. Consider these excerpts from his website: "Sam Shamoun refused to answer the 3 deadly questions of Christianity"; "The 4 arguments of why Islam is a religion of peace." Both you, TR, and Nadir write "4 arguments."

Yet this is not enough for a conviction. Consider the second line of evidence. You wrote "through out" as if it were two words instead of one. Most people know that "throughout" is a single word, but you don't. It's funny, then, that Nadir doesn't either. When we go to his website, we read the following comment about the debate: "Shamoun was repeatedly challenged through out the debate, but he ran away from this issue and falsely claimed it was off topic." Isn't it amazing that both you, TR, and Nadir misspell the same word in the same context?

But there's more. One also notes that you don't put a space between a word and a parenthesis that follows, e.g. "unfriendly people(sam's interpretation)" and "genocide or terrorism(i.e. 1 samuel 15:3)." The vast majority of people would have spaces here. Not surprisingly, we find that Nadir, too, often leaves out the space between a word and a parenthesis. Here's a section from his site: "Christians believe that Jesus is God( Islam teaches that Jesus is NOT God, rather God’s Messenger). Christians also believe that God inspired the Bible. Therefore, if God = Jesus, then it was Jesus(God) who inspired this commands to go commit genocide . . ." Another coincidence?

Fourth, you write "Quran" rather than "Qur'an" or "Koran," and so does Nadir: "One of the main points of disagreement between the Quran and the Bible are the issues of terrorism and genocide."

Nadir, while it is common for two people to share a particular writing peculiarity, it is quite improbable that two random people would share an entire collection of writing peculiarities. Writing, then, turns out to function like a fingerprint, Nadir. And you've just been caught red-handed.

The conclusion to draw from this evidence is that you, Nadir Ahmed, seeing that no one thinks positively of your performance in this debate, invented "TR" in order to praise yourself. This is absolutely pathetic, Nadir. Do you mean to tell me that you couldn't find a single person on the planet to write a positive comment about you? Are you so self-centered that you would lie in order to promote yourself? Wow! I have to ask, do you write love letters to yourself and show them to your friends to prove what a stud you are?

Like it or not, Sam absolutely crushed you in that debate. You can either take that like a man, or you can invent a hundred false internet characters to say that you won. Which is it going to be, Nadir?

If Nadir will resort to tactics such as this, how can we trust anything he says?

Sam Shamoun vs. Nadir Ahmed: “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

I’ve taken a couple of months off from blogging, but it’s a new year, and there’s much to discuss. Most importantly, the Shamoun-Ahmed debate is now available, and can be watched by clicking on the screens below. The topic was “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” This was one of the most one-sided debates I’ve ever seen. Nadir is normally confident, but he was noticeably shaken throughout this debate. Nadir also typically scores points through rhetoric (rather than through argument), but his rhetoric was completely overpowered by Sam’s presentations. Sam dominated in his opening statement, in his rebuttals, in his conclusion, and in his answers to questions. Nadir constantly tried to divert the debate to Christianity (this is called the tu quoque fallacy), but Sam did an excellent job focusing on the topic of the debate. I would score the debate 95-5 (95 for Sam, 5 for Nadir). Anyone watching the debate will see immediately why Muslims are so reluctant to debate this topic. (Nadir was the only Muslim in the country willing to do it!)

PART ONE:


PART TWO:


PART THREE:


Sam Shamoun's debates notes (including quotations and references) may be accessed here.

See also the following articles:

The Debate Results Are in!
Nadir Ahmed Exposed! (Textual Criticism and Taqiyya)
Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya
Nadir Ahmed on "Dirty Tricks": Part One
Nadir Ahmed on "Dirty Tricks": Part Two
More Deception from Nadir Ahmed
Nadir Ahmed's First Positive "Review"
Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally