Abdallah-Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?" (Google Video Version)

For those of you who don't like the superior technology of Motionbox, here's the Google Video version of my debate with Osama Abdallah.

OSAMA'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


OSAMA'S FIRST REBUTTAL


DAVID'S FIRST REBUTTAL


SECOND REBUTTALS, Q&A, CONCLUSIONS


Here's the Hadith we disputed about on killing dogs:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3323--Narrated Abdullah bin Umar: Allah's Messenger ordered that the dogs should be killed.

Osama accused me of lying and claimed that the passage says "rabid dogs." I corrected him, but then he thanked me for admitting that I had lied! I have trouble understanding how logic works in the Muslim world.

DAVID: "Al-Bukhari 3323 says that dogs should be killed."

OSAMA: "David's lying! It says 'rabid dogs.'"

DAVID: "The Hadith doesn't say anything about rabid dogs; you're thinking of a different Hadith."

OSAMA: "Thank you for admitting that you lied!"

DAVID: "???"

Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood: "Was Muhammad a True Prophet?"

Osama Abdallah has one of the largest Islamic websites on the net (Answering Christianity), and he's been involved in apologetics for a long time, so I was pleased when he challenged me to debate him on the prophethood of Muhammad. While Osama has upset a lot of people with some of the offensive material on his website, he was quite easy to get along with in person. I look forward to another debate with him. I have to say, however, that I think it was a mistake for him to request 50-minute opening statements. I know he wanted the time to lay out his arguments carefully. The problem is that it also gave me plenty of time to refute his arguments. I'll say this to Muslim apologists everywhere: A Muslim argument will only work in a debate if the Christian simply doesn't have adequate time to respond. Hence, giving a Christian a 50-minute opening statement and a 30-minute rebuttal is a recipe for disaster (for Islam). For those interested in the Argument from Scientific Accuracy, Osama and I discussed science quite a bit in this debate. My camera didn't catch his slides, but those who are interested can visit his site to see the images he refers to. [Note: For those who are already familiar with my arguments against Islam, you may want to fast-forward through about half of my opening statement. The arguments I used were virtually identical to the arguments I used in my debate with Bassam, but I soon focused on other issues.]

OSAMA'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


OSAMA'S FIRST REBUTTAL


DAVID'S FIRST REBUTTAL


SECOND REBUTTALS, Q&A, CONCLUSIONS


For those interested in further responses to Osama Abdallah, see the articles here and listen to his debate with Sam Shamoun here.

Keith Truth on One of Sami Zaatari's Arguments

Debates rarely afford the opportunity to thoroughly respond to arguments, which is why post-debate commentary is so valuable. In my first debate with Sami Zaatari, Sami argued that we can know that Muhammad was a prophet because his message was the same as the prophets of the Bible. I responded by noting several significant differences between Muhammad's message and the message of the Bible. In the following video, Keith Truth adds a number of points that help show how utterly absurd it is for Muslims to appeal to the Bible for support.

Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood: "Can We Trust the Qur'an?"

Farhan Qureshi is one of my three favorite Muslims (the others being Ahsen Malik and Bassam Zawadi). In this debate, we discuss some of the central claims of the Qur'an, and the implications on its reliability. (For more by Farhan, visit the Defending Islam website.)

FARHAN'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


REBUTTALS


CROSSFIRE, CONCLUSIONS, Q&A

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

In our debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, Sami had to radically reinterpret the Qur'an and the Hadith, cling to an abrogated verse, reject the claims of Abu Bakr, throw out the interpretations of Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi, and call Aisha and Ali "bad Muslims." In the following debate on whether Christianity is a religion of peace, Sami can't show a single situation where Christians would be called to violence. Yet he argues that Christianity is a religion of violence because God judged people in the past and will judge people in the future!!! (Notice the inconsistency, since Sami would never apply this reasoning to Islam.)

DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


SAMI'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

SAMI'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS


I. VIOLENCE TOWARDS UNBELIEVERS

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

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. VIOLENCE TOWARDS APOSTATES

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

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

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

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

III. VIOLENCE TOWARDS CRITICS

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

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

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

IV. VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. VIOLENCE TOWARDS SINNERS

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

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

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

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

VI. ASSESSMENT

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

Debate Announcement

September 20th, 2008--Bellflower, California
***10:00 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Was Jesus Crucified or Substituted?"

***2:00 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.***
Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood
"Can We Trust the Qur'an?"

***6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Can We Trust the New Testament?"

September 21st, 2008--Escondido, California
***2:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.***
James White vs. Farhan Qureshi
"Did Jesus Claim to Be God?"

***6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.***
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood
"Is Muhammad a True Prophet?"

For more information, contact Ministry to Muslims.

Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain Are Now Legally Binding

Closer . . . closer . . . closer . . .

Sharia will soon be everywhere.

"Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain Are Now Legally Binding"

Nadir Ahmed: Taqiyya Incarnate

I've never made a huge deal out of this, but it seems our friend Nadir is still trying to sucker Christian debaters into exchanging arguments with him. So I've decided to publish the evidence. I'm sure that Muslims will have no objections to Nadir's actions. Christians, on the other hand, will have a different view. Here's the article:

"Nadir Ahmed: Taqiyya Incarnate"

And for those who would like to learn more about the "only Muslim debater in America," please see the following articles and debates:

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

Nadir Ahmed vs. James White: "Can We Trust the New Testament?"

"Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya"

"Nadir Ahmed Exposed!"

"Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally"

Answering Islam's Page on Nadir Ahmed

Answering Christianity's Page on Nadir Ahmed

Debate Announcement

Sunday, September 14th, 2008

"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"
Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood
2:30-5:00 P.M.

"Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"
David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari
6:00-8:30 P.M.

Location:
2505 Yorba Linda Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92831

From Islam to Christianity: Naeem's Testimony

Mike Licona vs. Shabir Ally on the Deity of Christ

Here's one of the shortest debates in history.

Muslim Bus Campaign in Chicago

Oh, the freedoms we enjoy in America! I wonder if Muslims would allow me to post an ad on a bus in Mecca: "Jesus is Lord! He's the Only Way to Heaven! For more information, contact www.Acts17.net."



(Note: For Muslims who want to support this Dawah effort, you can donate here.)

James White on Philippians 2:5-11

Most Muslim objections to the Deity of Christ can be answered with Philippians 2. Christians and Muslims would do well to examine this passage carefully. Here's a talk by James White.



And here's the passage:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Dispatches: "Undercover Mosque (The Return)"

Last year, hidden cameras proved that violence, intolerance, and bigotry are being preached in UK mosques--even in mosques that claim to be moderate and peaceful (click here to watch the original program). Many of the leaders who were exposed promised to clean up their mosques. "Undercover Mosque" returned recently to see whether these leaders have kept their promise. The footage shows that violence, intolerance, and bigotry are still being preached. But I'm sure Muslim leaders will promise (again) to clean up their mosques.

Knowledgeable viewers will notice how the producers of the show are doing everything in their power to convince us that these violent teachings have nothing to do with Islam. They say of some teaching, "But this is nowhere in the Qur'an," as if we don't know that it's in the Hadith (the second source of Sharia). There's a great deal of irony here. "Undercover Mosque" sets out to expose the deception of mosques that claim to be peaceful while secretly preaching violence. But the writers of the show go to liberal Muslims to learn about Islam, and these liberal Muslims completely misrepresent Islam to make it sound peaceful. So if we go to the mosques, they lie and tell us they're preaching peace. If we go to liberal Muslims, they lie and claim that the Qur'an and Hadith promote peace and tolerance. Wherever we go, Muslims are trying to deceive us. Do you know who isn't trying to deceive us? Osama bin Laden. You can say what you want about him, but at least we know where he stands.


Watch Undercover Mosque: The Return in Politics  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Sami Zaatari Posts a Preemptive Strike against "Undercover Mosque: The Return"

"Undercover Mosque: The Return" airs today. (The original program can be viewed here.) Sami Zaatari has posted a video response to an article describing the program.

MUSLIM RESPONSE VIDEO:


I find this response interesting, since I can't figure out what the video is complaining about. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the article:

Worshippers are repeatedly told they must lead separate lives from non-believers and not tolerate other religions. Christian teachings are described as "vile and disgusting, an abomination."

The point of this passage, clearly, is that the mosque claims to promote moderation and dialogue with other faiths, and yet, behind closed doors, the message can hardly be called "moderate." Is the writer doing anything wrong by pointing out the fact that the message the mosque claims to promote is quite different from the one it actually promotes?

The video also complains about the following passage:

Unbelievers ('kuffaars') are described in one DVD as: "Evil, wicked, mischievous people - you can see the evil in their face". Whilst Jews, "have abominated, filthy, disgusting gross belief - their time will come like every other evil person's time will come."

The Muslim response video complains that "kuffaars" is written in parentheses and quotation marks. But the writing is entirely correct. Parentheses are supposed to go around a word if a translation is added, and quotation marks go around the word if it's being quoted. Hence, the writer uses both parentheses and quotation marks. How dare he be grammatically correct! Again, our Muslim friend complains about nothing.

The Muslim response video also claims that the West is inconsistent, since this particular article points out the fact that Muslims are saying offensive things about Christians. Apparently, our Muslim friend thinks that the media will never point a finger at anyone who says anything about Islam. Is this true? Were Muslims on vacation when Jerry Vines called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile"? Did they miss the media attention given to Falwell or Franklin Graham when they dared criticize Islam?

"Undercover Mosque" is doing the world a great service by proving, conclusively, that many Muslims who pretend to be moderate and peaceful are simply pretending. This is indisputable. Muslims feel the need to respond to the facts. But with nothing to say, they can only complain about nothing. "Undercover Mosque" complains that Muslims are deceiving us, and that they are preaching violence. The Muslim response video complains about parentheses. Talk about inconsistency!

I think that everyone should read the article carefully, then watch the video response and see how pointless the Muslim response is.