Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "Peace and Violence In Christianity and Islam"

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


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS


Q&A/CONCLUSIONS


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?")

Bassam Zawadi on God's (Literal) Fingers

In debates on the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, Muslims often object that it makes no sense to believe that God could take on a physical form. Interestingly, Salafis tend to hold that Allah has literal fingers, literal eyes, a literal shin, etc., but that these are somehow different from created things. Consider my friend Bassam Zawadi's discussion of this issue here.

Bassam says: "So we know from these hadith that Allah has fingers and the other hadith (i.e. the heart of the believers lies between two fingers of the Merciful...) carries the meaning that we are under His protection, yet that doesn't negate the reality that Allah literally does have fingers (unlike His creation of course)."

Bassam goes on in another post to ask whether God actually has a palm (I'm not sure why he wouldn't, considering he has literal fingers, which can't just be floating around).

I'm not sure the Salafi defense of their interpretations makes much sense.

For more on this issue see:

"Allah: Evidence of an Anthropomorphic Deity"

"Allah--An Immaterial Entity or an Invisible Man?"

"A Question and Challenge to Salafi Anthropomorphists"

Bassam's Response to Previous Article

Question on Killing (for Sami and Yahya)

Before I post my debate on peace and violence in Islam and Christianity with Adnan Rashid, I have a short, simple question for Sami Zaatari and Yahya Hayder Seymour.

In my opening statement, I said that I am a man of peace because I have been commanded to be a man of peace. I said that if Islam were true, I would have been a man of violence. In other words, I will do what God tells me to do. As things stand, God has commanded me to live in peace with all men.

Later in the debate, Adnan asked if I would kill a child if God commanded me to. I responded in complete accord with what I had said in my opening statement. I will do whatever God commands me to do.

Adnan was shocked at my response, and he said that he would need to keep his children away from me (apparently in spite of the fact that God has commanded me to harm no one).

It seems, then, that if God were to command Adnan to do something he didn't want to do, Adnan would refuse. In the debate, I pointed out that this is the real reason Muslims reject Christianity. They reject doctrines such as the Incarnation because they don't like them.

My question for Sami and Yahya is this: Do you agree with Adnan? God doesn't allow Muslims to kill children (with certain exceptions, e.g. battles at night). God doesn't allow Christians to kill anyone. But if God were to appear to us and were to tell us to kill some child (let us suppose that we know for a fact that God is speaking), would you reject God's command or not? (I would have included Bassam in this question, but I'm fairly certain that Bassam would agree with me: Whatever God tells us to do must be done. I'm less certain about the position of Sami and Yahya.)

So, before I respond to Adnan's charge, I would like to know where Yahya and Sami stand.

Shabir Ally on the Satanic Verses

Most of what Shabir said about the Satanic Verses in this video is correct, and it seems he's better informed than most Muslims on this issue. I have a few comments.

(1) Shabir says that these narratives were put into circulation "much later." If by "much later" he means "very early," then I agree. Islam's earliest scholars and historians supported this event.

(2) The host asks Shabir why someone would fabricate such a story. Shabir could offer no reason. And that's crucial. Muslims had reasons for inventing miracle stories about Muhammad (this helped them in their evangelism efforts). Sunnis and Shias had reasons for inventing stories that helped their positions (e.g. "Here's a story saying that Muhammad liked Abu Bakr best). But why on earth would several Muslims independently invent stories about their prophet delivering a revelation from Satan? We can't even conceive of a reason, which means that the only explanation for the data is that the stories are true.

(3) Shabir claims that, since the event supposedly occurred during the Meccan period, people like Ibn Abbas would have been dealing with second-hand information. Really? Ibn Abbas knew many, many people who would have been present in Mecca when Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses. Would he really not be able to determine the truth? Moreover, does anyone think that Ibn Abbas was so incredibly sloppy that he wouldn't have investigated this story before passing it on? The same may be asked about the other first-century sources.

(4) Shabir argues that Muhammad couldn't have delivered the Satanic Verse because this would have destroyed his credibility in the eyes of his followers. It would "spell the end of his career." But this is simply false. Muhammad's followers knew that his original interpretation of his revelations was that he was possessed by a jinn. This didn't hurt his credibility. They knew that Muhammad was the victim of black magic. This didn't hurt his credibility. They knew that Muhammad received revelations that tended to satisfy his desires (e.g. extra wives and marrying his adopted son's wife). This didn't hurt his credibility. We also know that many of the early Muslim scholars believed in Muhammad, even though they also believed he had delivered the Satanic Verses. So does this answer succeed? Not at all.

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Authentic?"

I was quite excited when Muslims agreed to debate this topic. I thought it would never happen. Needless to say, I think the evidence makes it abundantly clear that Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses. The only way around this is for Muslims (1) to declare that their earliest scholars were a bunch of liars, and (2) to cling to an outdated method of historical investigation, which, though originally designed to arrive at truth, is now being used by Muslims to eliminate embarrassing facts about Muhammad.

ADNAN'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


REBUTTALS


Q&A/CONCLUSIONS


For more on the Satanic Verses, see "Muhammad and the Satanic Verses." For more on the implications of the Satanic Verses, see "The Deuteronomy Deductions."

James White vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Unbelievable?

For more on Abdullah al-Andalusi, click here.

James White on the Inconsistency of Shabir Ally

Earlier this week, James White debated Shabir Ally in London. As usual, James drew attention to the inconsistency of Muslim apologists. Shabir appeals to radical anti-supernaturalist scholars when he discusses the Bible, and yet he would never think of applying the standards of "orientalists" to the Qur'an. Amazingly, Shabir criticizes Christian debaters for the very inconsistency he is guilty of (and, thus, he is inconsistent in his condemnation of inconsistency). Even more amazing, Shabir defends his application of double standards (but would never accept such an absurd defense of double standards from Christians). One has to wonder: If one of Islam's top debaters acknowledges that he cannot attack Christianity without applying double standards, what does this say about his position?



Click here for some commentary by James White.

Expelling the Jews

In the 7th Century, Muhammad said: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims" (Sahih Muslim 4366). Medinah, which had a massive Jewish population when Muhammad came to town as a peacemaker, watched its Jewish population disappear at the hands of Muhammad. The Caliphs would carry on Muhammad's work of expelling the Jews, as would later Muslims.

Nevertheless, Jews managed to maintain populations in various places in the Muslim world--until now. Sixty years ago, for instance, there were more than 100,000 Jews in Baghdad. Today, there are eight. Not eight thousand--eight. READ MORE.

Converts to Christianity Plead for Tolerance

I certainly hope my Christian brothers and sisters who left Islam will succeed in their plea for tolerance; nevertheless, it seems quite futile to me to ask such a thing of Muslim scholars. By asking Muslims to be tolerant toward Christians (especially those who converted to Christianity) in Muslim lands, they are in effect asking Muslims to reject Muhammad's clear commands. While I would be quite excited to see Muslims reject Muhammad's commands, this isn't likely to happen. However, this should help bring the plight of Christians in Muslim lands to the attention of leaders in the West, and it should alert Europeans to the bleak future that awaits them. READ MORE.

13-Year-Old Rape Victim Stoned to Death (Welcome to Sharia)

Thirteen-year-old Aisha was raped by several Muslims. Unfortunately for her, the Qur'an makes her powerless to bring her accusers to justice (unless, of course, she has four male witnesses to support her claim--24:13). Poor Aisha tried anyway, however. She told the Muslim authorities that she had been raped, but since she couldn't produce four male Muslim witnesses to support her claim, the Muslim authorities accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning. Aisha was buried up to her head and stoned by fifty Muslims. Nurses dug her out of the hole to see if she was alive. When they determined that Aisha was still alive, she was again buried and stoned. No one has lifted a finger against the Muslims who raped her, but thousands of rape victims across the Muslim world understand her plight. Welcome to Islam, my friends. READ MORE. READ EVEN MORE.

(Yes, I know, Bassam and Sami, before you comment, that I shouldn't draw attention to this, or say that it has something to do with Islam. Shame on me for shining a light on the fruit of your religion.)

James White vs. Jalal Abualrub: "Does the New Testament Teach that Jesus Is God?"

As far as I can tell, this debate was over by the time James finished his opening statement. (One important note: Jalal admitted that God can enter into His creation.)

PART ONE

PART TWO