Islam's Amazingly Unfalsifiable Claims--Part One: The Preservation of the Qur'an

Suppose my friend Bassam presents the following hypothesis: "There are undetectable aliens living on Pluto." Suppose I travel to Pluto in search of these aliens. I set up all kinds of instruments to see if there is any evidence of aliens. I return empty-handed. "Bassam," I say. "You said there were aliens on Pluto. I checked. But there aren't any." "Well," Bassam replies, "I said they're undetectable, didn't I?"

Here I would have a difficult time understanding Bassam's meaning. He's making a positive claim, namely, that there are aliens on Pluto. But at the same time, by saying that these aliens are undetectable, he's ruling out our ability to test his claim. His claim is unfalsifiable, meaning there's no way, even in theory, that we can prove his theory false via experiment or observation. How useful are such hypotheses?

Consider now the following claim made by Bassam and other Muslims: "The Qur'an has been perfectly preserved." At first, it seems like such a claim is falsifiable. That is, it seems that we can test the claim by doing some historical research. So we do a little research and we learn that Abdullah ibn Masud and Ubayy ibn Ka'b, two of Muhammad's top reciters of the Qur'an, had a different number of Surahs in their versions of the Qur'an. One would think that this falsifies the Muslim claim. "Not so," says Bassam. "Abdullah and Ubayy were simply wrong. The Qur'an we have today is, by definition, the correct one. Hence, everyone who has a different number of chapters must be wrong." So, given such a claim, even if we were to find out that every single one of Muhammad's companions except Zaid ibn Thabit had a different number of Surahs, this wouldn't count as any evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, since, by definition, only the Qur'an we have today is the correct one.

So we do a little more investigation. We find that there were all kinds of textual variants among early Qur'anic texts. That is, if we were to turn to Surah 2 in the Qur'an of Ubayy ibn Ka'b, this Surah would differ from that in the Qur'an of Ibn Masud, which would differ from that in the Qur'an of Zaid ibn Thabit, etc. These Qur'ans have spelling differences, different words, different phrases, etc. Surely this will count as evidence against the perfect preservation of the Qur'an, won't it? "No, it won't," replies the Muslim. "You see, there were seven [or ten, or twenty] different readings of the Qur'an, and all of them were correct." Here we find that there can be all sorts of differences among copies of the Qur'an, and yet this doesn't at all affect the hypothesis that the Qur'an we have today is a perfect copy of the tablet in heaven.

We dig deeper in search of the truth, and we find Muslim sources reporting that massive sections of the Qur'an have been lost. We find Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b reporting that more than a hundred verses of Surah 33 are missing. Surely this will count as proof that the Qur'an hasn't been perfectly preserved. "Not so," says the Muslim. "Whatever verses are missing from the Qur'an have been abrogated (despite the fact that the Qur'an contains other verses that have been abrogated). You see, Allah changed his mind quite a bit, and he often gave us verses, only to take those verses back." Thus, we find that no matter how much evidence there is that numerous verses are missing from the Qur'an, this will never count as any evidence whatsoever against perfect preservation.

Here non-Muslims are quite confused. Were the missing verses of Surah 33 part of the tablet in heaven? If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is very different from the Qur'an in heaven. If not, then why were they revealed as part of the Qur'an? While we're at it, does the perfect Qur'an in heaven contain all seven readings (this would be quite an odd book). If so, then the Qur'an Muslims have today is quite different from the Qur'an in heaven, since Uthman destroyed most (but not all) of the different readings. If not, weren't the variants corruptions of the original, which contained no variants?

In the end, no matter what the evidence says, Muslims will continue to claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, for they have insulated themselves from the evidence (and this is extremely common in Islam). But non-Muslims are left asking ourselves, "What is the difference between, on the one hand, a perfectly preserved book whose early copies contain different numbers of chapters, different verses, different spellings, different words, different phrases, a different order of chapters, and which, at different times, contained completely different passages (for some were abrogated), and, on the other hand, a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved at all?" As far as evidence is concerned, there is no difference between the Qur'an and a book that hasn't been perfectly preserved, which is why the Muslim claim makes so little sense to anyone who isn't a Muslim.

Aisha and Ubayy ibn Ka'b on the 100+ Verses Missing from Surah 33

Muslims claim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved. They can only make this claim, however, by employing their standard apologetic strategy--namely, rejecting their own sources and calling the early Muslim scholars "liars." As I argued here, such an approach will ultimately lead to skepticism about Muhammad. But if this is how Muslims want to argue, so be it.

Indeed, I'd like to see my Muslim friends reject even more commentary from early Muslims, who were in a better position to know what really happened. Let's consider two passages in which Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's most trusted reciters of the Qur'an) and Aisha (the "Mother of the Faithful") declare that approximately two-thirds of Surah 33 is missing. Both passages are taken from Abu Ubaid's Kitab Fada'il-al-Qur'an.

Ibn Abi Maryam related to us from Ibn Luhai'a from Abu'l-Aswad from Urwa b. az-Zubair from A'isha who said, "Surat al-Ahzab (xxxiii) used to be recited in the time of the Prophet with two hundred verses, but when Uthman wrote out the codices he was unable to procure more of it than there is in it today."

Isma'il b. Ibrahim and Isma'i b. Ja'far related to us from al-Mubarak b. Fadala from Asim b. Abi'n-Nujud from Zirr b. Hubaish who said--Ubai b. Ka'b said to me, "O Zirr, how many verses did you count (or how many verses did you read) in Surat al-Ahzab?" "Seventy-two or seventy-three," I answered. Said he, "Yet it used to be equal to Surat al-Baqara (ii), and we used to read in it the verse of Stoning."

I brought up Aisha's claim in a debate with Bassam, and Bassam, if I recall correctly, confidently proclaimed that the passage had been "fabricated." I hereby ask my friend Bassam to provide evidence that the Muslims in the chains I've presented were inventing false claims about the Qur'an. I would also like Bassam to say that Abu Ubaid (who was called "the ocean of knowledge" by his fellow Muslims) was ignorant and sloppy in his investigation of these passages.

(Note: If you ever wondered what happened to the "Verse of Stoning," which was supposed to be part of the Qur'an but instead came up missing, Ubayy ibn Ka'b says above that it fell out with the other 100+ missing verses of Surah 33).

Nakdimon vs. Yahya19 on Paltalk Today

Today at 7:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) Nakdimon will be debating Yahya. To listen in, click here and log in.

Muhammad, Mary, and Miriam: A Qur'anic Confusion

The Arabic word for "Mary" (the mother of Jesus) is the same as the word for "Miriam" (the sister of Moses and Aaron). If the Qur'an is not the word of God, this confusion might cause problems for Muhammad. Interestingly enough, the Qur'an confuses Mary with Miriam.

Qur'an 19:27-28--"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: 'O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

Notice that the Qur'an refers to Mary (the mother of Jesus) as the "sister of Aaron" (i.e. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron). Even Christians during the time of Muhammad recognized this error, and Muhammad had a chance to respond.

Sahih Muslim 5326--"Mughira b. Shuba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read 'O sister of Harun ["Aaron"]' (i.e. Hadrat Maryam) in the Qur'an, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: The (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them."

So Muhammad's response is that people in the time of Mary would refer to a pious young woman as the "sister of X," where X might be a prophet from 1400 years earlier. The problem is that we have no record of such a practice in first century Israel, and we don't even find it used elsewhere in the Qur'an. The obvious conclusion, then, is that Muhammad simply made a mistake, and that he tried to correct it by making something up.

Two more points are worthy of note in al-Muslim's hadith. First, the Christians of Najran knew nothing of the practice of referring to pious young women as the sister of some prophet, even though they would have been familiar with traditions about Mary. Second, the Muslim who talked to them obviously didn't know that this was a figure of speech, since he was stumped by the refutation and had to go back to Muhammad for an answer. Thus, Christians knew nothing of the practice Muhammad referred to, and Muslims who had been reciting the Qur'an in Muhammad's presence were never told that "sister of Aaron" was a metaphor. Indeed, they only learned this when Muhammad had been accused of erring.

But things get even worse. The father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam was a man named Amram (Arabic: "Imran"):

1 Chronicles 6:1-3--"The sons of Levi were Gershon, Kohath and Merari. The sons of Kohath were Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel. The children of Amram were Aaron, Moses and Miriam."

Hence, if Muhammad really believed that Mary the mother of Jesus was the same person as Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron, it wouldn't surprise us to find Muhammad referring to Mary as "the daughter of Imran." Not surprisingly, this is exactly what we find in the Qur'an and the Hadith:

Qur'an 3:35-36--"Behold! When the wife of Imran said: 'O my Lord! I do dedicate unto Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: for Thou hearest and knowest all things.' When she was delivered, she said: 'O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!'--And Allah knew best what she brought forth--'And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mary, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from the Evil One, the Rejected.'"

Sahih al-Bukhari 3769--"Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: Allah's Messenger said, 'Many amongst men attained perfection but amongst women none attained the perfection except Maryam (Mary), the daughter of Imran, and Asiya, the wife of Fir'aun (Pharaoh)."

Note that Mary's mother is called "the wife of Imran." The Qur'an certainly takes the application of this metaphor to an extreme, for now we must assume that there was a first century practice in which a pious woman would be called the "wife" of the father of a prophet!

Thus, if we are to believe Muhammad's explanation for what appears to be a rather obvious error in the Qur'an, we must believe that there was a first century practice in which people would refer to a pious young woman as "the sister of X" (where X was a prophet who died centuries earlier), and as the daughter of the wife of Y (where Y was the father of prophet X), and as "the daughter of Y" (where, again, Y was the father of prophet X). When we combine this with the fact that, by an amazing coincidence, there was indeed a woman named Miriam who was both the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Amram, and whose mother was the wife of Amram, we have to wonder why the author of the Qur'an would pass on such a confusing collection of metaphors, with absolutely no evidence that these metaphors were ever used in the first century, and with the only reasonable conclusion being that Muhammad didn't know that Mary and Miriam were two different people, who lived more than a thousand years apart.

Mumbai Massacre Photos

Angels Among Us?

This doesn't have much to do with Islam, but it's interesting.

"Disabled Teen Recovered after Glowing Image Appeared on Monitor."

Surah 86:5-7 and the Formation of Sperm

Muslims often claim that the Qur'an is a scientific masterpiece. Yet to anyone who isn't already a Muslim, it's difficult to understand how Muslims can make such a claim. The Qur'an is filled with statements which, if taken at face value, are completely false. Let's consider one such passage. Indeed, let's play a game that I'd like to call: "Out-Answer Ali."

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted--proceedings from between the backbone and the ribs." (Surah 86:5-7)

In his famous commentary on the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali tries to explain this obvious error on Muhammad's part. Here's Ali's footnote:

"A man's seed is the quintessence of his body. It is therefore said metaphorically to proceed from his loins, i.e., from his back between the hipbones and his ribs. His backbone is the source and symbol of his strength and personality. In his spinal cord and in the brain is the directive energy of the central nervous system, and this directs all action, organic and psychic. The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata in the brain."

Notice that Ali doesn't even come close to explaining Muhammad's error. "The spinal cord is continuous with the Medulla Oblongata . . ." What in the world does this have to do with Muhammad's claim that sperm come from the area between the spinal cord and the ribs?

So who's going to out-answer Ali? Can my Muslim friends show that sperm really do come from between the backbone and ribs? (Note: I don't really care that the Qur'an contains scientific errors. The point here is that Muslims can't base their belief in the divine inspiration of the Qur'an on it's supposed scientific accuracy. If Muslims want a defense of the Qur'an, they'll have to look somewhere other than science.)

For more on the Qur'an and science, see Answering Islam's page here.

David and Nabeel on Iron Sharpens Iron Today and Tomorrow

Nabeel and I will be in the studio with Chris Arnzen today and tomorrow on "Iron Sharpens Iron" (3:00 P.M., Eastern Standard Time). You can listen to the broadcasts live by going here and clicking on one of the live-streaming links. If you live in New York or Connecticut you can tune your radio to 1440AM. We'll post the MP3s as soon as we get them.

*****UPDATE***** To listen to the broadcasts, click here (for the first broadcast, concerning Nabeel's conversion) and here (for the second broadcast, concerning the Mumbai Massacre and violence in Islam).

Denial ad Absurdum: When Muslims Undermine Their Own Religion

There is a growing trend among Muslim debaters that demands our attention. Muslims are denying virtually all their early sources (apart from the Qur'an).

As earnest investigators of Islam, we ask our Muslim friends: "What should we turn to in order to investigate Islam?" We are told "Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih al-Muslim are the most trustworthy traditions of the prophet." But as soon as we turn to these collections for information about Muhammad, the Muslims deny their usefulness!

For example, when quoting Sahih al-Bukhari regarding the punishment for apostasy, even scholars and sheikhs have been known to deny the authenticity of the traditions (e.g. Jamal Badawi). When quoting Sahih al-Muslim regarding the punishment of Christians and Jews for the sins of Muslims (#6666), an immediate declaration of "daeef" or "weak hadith" is issued from a Shia Muslim. When quoting al-Muslim concerning the hadith in which Muhammad hits Aisha on her chest, causing her pain, Sunnis have said this tradition cannot be true. But these are the most trustworthy collections of ahadith!

Then what must we do as honest investigators of Islam? We must turn to the earliest biographies of Muhammad - indeed, this is what any historian would do to begin with! But when quoting Ibn Ishaq, Waqidi, and Ibn Saad, the Muslims insist that we not use these sources, stating that they are even less trustworthy than the above collections of ahadith!

This is not a rare occurrence - in fact, denial of sources is one of the most common responses Muslims provide to challenges against Islam's foundations.

But there are at least two over-arching problems that result from this position. The first is that investigators are left with no sources that they know Muslims will consider trustworthy except for the Qur'an itself. But "Qur'an Only" Islam looks nothing like the actual religion. When Muslims state that we must turn to commentaries and ahadith to understand the context of the Qur'an, their simultaneous insistence that other parts of those compilations are untrustworthy makes investigating Islam into a game of "guess what I'm thinking."

The second problem is more insidious: when Muslims deny the trustworthiness of virtually all the early Muslims (stating that they were unable to filter out blatant lies like the Satanic verses, the verse of stoning, etc.) they are denying the trustworthiness of those who recounted the Qur'an. But one must ask, how do early Muslims go from being regularly untrustworthy when recounting ahadith and sirah to being 100% trustworthy when recounting the Qur'an?

In conclusion, Muslims' denials of early Islamic sources have far reaching consequences. By these standards, investigators cannot trust any source enough to be able to gather accurate knowledge of Islam except the Qur'an, they cannot use anything in aiding their interpretation of the Qur'an, and in fact they have no reason at all to trust the Qur'an itself.

Nakdimon Responds to Bassam Zawadi's Response to James White's Response to Bassam Zawadi

Nabeel and I just finished listening to Nakdimon's (hilarious) response to Bassam. The audio is more than an hour long, but well worth listening to.



For James's original video, click here.

Let the People Speak!

In March, there will be a New York debate series with Nabeel Qureshi, Sami Zaatari, Abdullah al-Andalusi, Yahya Hayder Seymour, and me. We were trying to come up with some final topics, so Sami and I decided to let the people cast their votes.

What topics would you be most interested in seeing us debate? (If we debate them, we'll post them here, so that everyone can watch.)

An Analogy for My Muslim Friends (who Reject History and Attack Their Own Sources)

In the "comments" section of a recent post, Yahya objected to my claim that Muslim apologists are going to increase skepticism about Muhammad by attacking their own sources so frequently. Yahya called this a "pathetic argument." Let me give you an analogy in order to explain why I think this is a perfectly good argument.

Let's say that we're all members of the U.S. Secret Service, and that our job is to protect Governor X from being assassinated. Governor X is speaking at a rally, and so we decide to check people for weapons as they enter the auditorium. A man enters; we search him; we run him through a metal detector; and we let him through. A second man enters; we search him; we run him through a metal detector; and we let him through. And so on, and so on, until the the auditorium is filled with people.

Governor X gets up to speak, and suddenly an audience member pulls out a gun. We tackle him and drag him out. Here several questions should immediately arise in our minds: "How could this person have a gun when we searched everyone? Were our searches flawed? Does our metal detector work properly? Is it possible that other people in the room have weapons?" Let us further suppose that another person stands up with a gun, and another, and another. The more people who turn out to have weapons, the less we can trust that Governor X is safe.

Now let's apply this to history. The Secret Service agents represent Muslim scholars and historians, and the would-be assassins represent false stories about Muhammad. Muslim scholars and historians were supposedly the ones who were protecting and preserving the truth about Muhammad from generation to generation. Ibn Ishaq wrote our earliest extant biography about Muhammad. We open his biography, and we find that it's filled with false stories. Did Ibn Ishaq perform his Secret Service duties well? According to Muslims, no. He put the truth about Muhammad in danger.

Another early biographer is Wakidi. According to Muslims, Wakidi's text is filled with lies. So did Wakidi do a good job of preserving the truth? No.

In my debate on the Satanic Verses, I showed that a number of Islam's earliest scholars declared that Muhammad delivered verses from Satan. According to Muslims, these early scholars were either liars or they were fools, but they weren't reliable. So even the early Muslim historians and scholars weren't doing a good job of weeding out false stories.

In a recent post, I quoted more than one passage from Sahih Muslim, showing that, according to Muhammad, Allah will punish Jews and Christians in hell for the sins of Muslims. According to Yahya, these passages were fabricated. Yahya isn't the only one to challenge Sahih Sittah. When non-Muslims quote passages on killing apostates, even scholars such as Jamal Badawi will say that these passages in al-Bukhari were fabricated. In a recent debate with Jay Smith, Shabir Ally said, in effect, that any Muslim texts that teach violence have been fabricated. But what does this mean? It means that even Islam's most trusted hadith scholars allowed false stories to creep into their works. Thus, even al-Bukhari and al-Muslim couldn't distinguish truth from falsehood, using the most sophisticated methodologies available to them.

The result is that even the greatest of Muslim scholars are inaccurate. Both in a debate with Sami Zaatari and a debate with Adnan Rashid, I quoted the greatest Muslim commentator of all time: Ibn Kathir. Both Sami and Adnan rejected Ibn Kathir's claims. But Ibn Kathir's claims were based on his research of early Muslim sources. Hence, according to Sami and Adnan, even Ibn Kathir couldn't figure out what was true and what was false.

So what do we have today? According to Muslims, we have a large auditorium filled with thousands and thousands of false stories about Muhammad. This proves (1) that the early Muslim community was passing on false information about Muhammad, (2) that the early Muslim scholars were also passing on false information about Muhammad, and (3) that later Muslim scholars couldn't distinguish true reports from false reports.

The effects are already before us. Muslim apologists feel justified in rejecting practically anything I quote to them from their sources. But will it end here? No. Once we conclude that there isn't a single reliable historical source on the life of Muhammad, and once we conclude that Muslims have been lying from the beginning, it isn't a tremendous leap for us to say: "If that's the situation with your sources, how can I trust anything you say about Muhammad?" We can see, then, why a Muslim scholar recently declared that Muhammad probably never existed. I repeat: If Muslims continue attacking their own historical sources, they will increase skepticism about Muhammad.

James White Responds to Joshua Evans on the Deity of Christ

I was going to wait until James finished this series before I posted it, but it seems the series is going to take a long time. James discusses the arguments of Joshua Evans, a former "Youth Minister" who converted to Islam based on careful (ha!) research.

What I find interesting is that, as I listen to Joshua's presentation, I'm aware of the fact that the vast majority of Muslims will be highly impressed with his claims. And yet practically everything that comes out of his mouth is false. This is what I've come to expect from the "Deen Show."

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE

The Status of Slave Girls in Islam

Could Arabic speaking Muslims please comment on the following post by Raymond Ibrahim at Jihad Watch? Is Ibrahim right or wrong?

Many are now aware that the Koran—that is, Allah’s word—permits, not just polygamy, but forced concubinage (sex with captive women), according to Koran 4:3: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice, then only one, or what your right hands possess [captive women taken in war].” There is, however, an interesting, and very telling, linguistic aspect to this verse that is often overlooked—or intentionally obscured. The Arabic states: “Ankahu [marry]…ma [what] malakat [possess] aymankum [your right hands].”

Oddly enough, the Arabic relative pronoun used to indicate these captive women is "ma": ma malakat aymankum, literally, “what your right hands possess” (see Shakir’s acclaimed English translation which most literally translates this). In Arabic, when one refers to a rational being (i.e., a human), the word used is min, which means “who(ever)”; ma, on the other hand, refers only to things or animals—trees, rocks, dogs and cats—very much similar to the English “it.” Thus, in proper Arabic the phrase might have been min malakat aymankum: “who(ever) your rights hands possess.”

For long I assumed this was but a stylistic matter. However, the highly revered Islamic scholar al-Qurtubi (d.1273) also makes this observation in vol. 5, p.12 of his authoritative 20-volume Tafsir Al Koran (Exegesis of the Koran). He points out that members of the human race should be referred to with min (who), whereas only “inanimate objects” or “brute beasts” should be referred to with ma (what).

Does this suggest that the Koran’s Arabic—touted as the most perfect Arabic—is flawed? Of course, no Muslim would allow for that. Nor need they, as this phenomenon (portraying concubines as non-human) accords well with a number of hadiths that place females and animals in the same category. Musnad Ibn Hanbal (vol. 2, p. 2992), for example, records Muhammad saying “Women, dogs, and donkeys annul a man’s prayer.” Indeed, in Qurtubi’s same Tafsir (vol.15, p.172), after examining such hadiths, he writes, "A Woman may be likened to a sheep—even a cow or a camel—for all are ridden.”

James White Responds to Bassam Zawadi on the Death of Jesus

Bassam Zawadi believes that Jesus didn't die by crucifixion. Instead, according to Bassam, Allah tricked people into believing that Jesus died on the cross. We must be clear, however, that all of the historical evidence supports the Christian view, not the Muslim view.

Muslims, of course, want the Christian view to be false, and they typically object to the Christian position by claiming that it would be unjust for God to place one person's sins on another person (despite the fact that this is exactly what Allah does in Sahih Muslim 6666). The problem with this objection is that Jesus was a voluntary sacrifice for sins. Bassam challenges this and asks where Jesus' words show that He was a willing sacrifice. Clearly, there are numerous passages which teach this, e.g. John 10:17-18: "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

James White gives a deeper response to Bassam:



If you're interested in the verse from Sahih Muslim supporting substitutionary atonement, here it is:

Sahih Muslim 6666—Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire.

And here's another:

Sahih Muslim 6668—Allah’s Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

James White Responds to Adnan Rashid's Comments about the New Testament

In my debate with Adnan Rashid on the Satanic Verses, Adnan made some comments about the New Testament. For the most part, I didn't respond, since his comments had nothing to do with whether Muhammad delivered the Satanic Verses (i.e. the topic of our debate). In the following video, James White respondes to Adnan's claims about the New Testament.

Sami Zaatari: Can a Zebra Change Its Stripes?

Sami's insults over the past day reveal something significant: Sami hasn't changed at all. I have posted offensive emails by Sami in the past, and I even took them down because Sami insisted that he had changed. Yet we can see that Sami is still Sami. Consider this collection of Sami's past emails to Christians.

Here's how Sami talks to Jochen Katz, who runs the Answering Islam website:

From: sami z
To: Jochen Katz
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:46 PM
Subject: hypocrite

hello there you nazi hypocrite. you always nag and complain when Muslims insult your false satanic faith, yet your dog of a writer shamoun recently came out calling the prophet Muhammad filthy. offcourse this exposes your double standards and how vile you missionary scum truly are, you cry foul and then you start spweing insults to the other side?

anyways since you dont like it when your faith is insulted enjoy this:

your satanic spirit is a prostitute and is what leads so many of your christian women into fornication, as you say the fake spirit leads the people, hence it seems your satanic spirit is leading your women into whoredom which is why 1 in 4 of them have STD, all of this shows your satanic spirit is a cheap prostitute.

And here's one to Sam Shamoun (which was Cc'd to half the planet).

RE: 'terror of the Lord'... and Shamoun won.. ooooooook.?
From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sat 1/05/08 8:02 PM To: Nadir Ahmed (nadir@examinethetruth.com); tariqroshan@gmail.com

Cc: 'sam shamoun' (sam_shmn40@hotmail.com);

hey shamoun why is that on a pc you always act hard and talk crap? yet face to face you become this little B and start begging nadir to be your friend and ending the past beef? i dont understand this...........i hope someone else on this list could explain that? is that a peace-loving Christian trait you guys have or what????????

well paul did sanction lying when you go face to face so i guess you are actually following your bible.....

Here's Sami trying to arrange some debates:

From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 9/04/07 11:27 PM
To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

hey there loser, you had any donuts today? did you feed some to your satanic holy spirit too? lol

anyways u loser, i havent stopped thinking of smashing ur backside in a debate, so here i am again challening you for a debate. infact 2 debates:

Is Muhammad a true Prophet

Terrorism in the Bible or the Quran

plz just say yes so i can give you a nice beat down, we can set the time sometime next month, i already have 2 debates planned for the next 2 months, making u the 3rd would be very nice.

so what do you say you silly demon possed loser? do you want to a good beating by me? dont be a chicken like the apostles in the bible. Plz

And here Sami again tries to arrange a debate:

From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 9/05/07 11:06 PM
To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

hey fat boy dont go crying to brother anas about me, if you wanna cry come cry to me, i sent you the email, why do you go crying to him you stupid obease cross worshiper?

he will smash you in a debate when you guys get it on, which is all good, and i also want to debate you too, to make it a double sized beating, you like that too dont you? double sized? double size holy spirit burger right?

so next time you and ur drunk spirit email me, instead of emailing the brother who has nothing to do with it, stupid boy you are stop acting tough and a bully cause ill smack you over the net and in real life got it? you dont scare anyone you stupid cross worshiping ASSyrian, infact some of my muslim friends once gave a good beat down to stupid ASSyrian christians who were messing with them and pushing them around, so better know your place fat boy.

so again, do you accept to debate me you fat drunk missionary style loser?

I'm still shocked that Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, Hamza, and even Shabir are all siding with Sami. They don't think it's right for Christians to blacklist someone who communicates this way. In effect, they're declaring that Christians must continue putting up with Sami's tirades. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Sami's New Article: "David Wood, the Epitome of a Christian Islamophobic Coward"

Yesterday, I told Sami that, because of his repeated unprovoked insults and childish behavior, he has been blacklisted. Sami defends himself against my charges in his new article, "David Wood, the Epitome of a Christian Islamophobic Coward." Let's take a look at his claims.

Indeed you just have to laugh at this Islamophobic clown, for starters Wood seems to think that he's the only Christian debater out there, or that he knows every single apologist, Wood seems to think that he's the pope! What's more funny is that a debate series we had planned for April has been cancelled, why? Well we have put Wood in his place, you see as I said, Wood thought he was a hot shot, yet I know every Muslim debater he had plans to debate with, so we did the same thing that Wood did, we black-listed him, and now Wood has no one to debate at all.

I don't claim to know every Christian debater. However, here in the United States, there are only a few people willing to debate Muslims regularly or semi-regularly: James White, myself, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun, and Mike Licona. I'm good friends with everyone on this list. James certainly isn't interested in debating Sami again. Mike wouldn't go near Sami in a million years. Nabeel has agreed to blacklist Sami, and I doubt Sam is interested in debating a man who's career is over. So, the blacklist in America is official.

What about the UK? Well, I doubt any of the debaters there who are over 20 years old will be interested in debating Sami. So, this has nothing to do with me being the pope. It has everything to do with the fact that Sami has annoyed and insulted practically everyone, and the fact that everyone is sick of his insults and childishness.

Sami says that I have no one to debate. I find this interesting, since I have a debate next month. Sami seems to assume that his "Hyde Park Dawah Group" has all the debaters in the world, and here he's wrong.

I find it absolutely shocking, however, that Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, and Hamza, are all willing to side with Sami. My reason for blacklisting Sami is that he's rude and insulting, and that he therefore has no business in public debate. I would expect Muslims to agree with me on this. Sami's reason for blacklisting me is that I blacklisted him for his atrocious behavior and lack of manners. Amazingly, Sami has convinced his fellow Muslim debaters to avoid future debates, all for the sake of siding with Nadir Ahmed's only serious competition for the title "Most Childish Debater in the World"!

In fact this Islamophobic clown even writes:

He has single-handedly ended two series of debates in March and April, and he has said that he will convince Shabir Ally never to debate me.

It seems that Wood is disappointed, what did you think Wood? Did you think you were a hot shot? Did you think that if you black-listed me you would be free to go and debate as you please? Well I think you must think again, because that's not going to happen anytime soon, indeed the April debate series have been cancelled due to your own initiation of a black-listing, which I returned in kind.

I'm disappointed, yes. I'm disappointed in Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, and Hamza for siding with you. I thought they were better than that, and that they would condemn your behavior. Alas, it seems they support you. This is tragic, but it's certainly not the end of the world. (I'll tell you what, Sami. I bet I have at least twenty debates with Muslims in 2009. Care to make a wager?)

Now some may ask why did this coward decide to black-list me? Well the explanation is almost laughable, this Islamophobe claims I am insulting and rude towards him and his religion! The irony! This Islamophobic clown who insults the Islamic religion and Muslim people none stop wants to talk about being rude and insultive?!

Sami doesn't understand the difference between being critical and being insulting. It's the difference between saying, "I'm disturbed by Muhammad's relationship with Aisha," and saying, "Muhammad was a child-molester!" The former is an honest criticism. The latter is an insult. I invite everyone to read Sami's comments here, where Nabeel posts a perfectly reasonable comment, and Sami goes on an unprovoked tirade, calling our God "homicidal" and "genocidal," calling us "marcionites" (polytheists who believe that Yahweh is evil), and in all other ways insulting our beliefs. Also pay attention to James White's comment at the end. (Note: This isn't the first time this has happened. This is a pattern with Sami, a pattern I've confronted him about in the past. He refuses to listen, which is why he's been blacklisted.)

Notice all this Islamophobe has down is expose his own hypocrisy and double standards, he feels it's okay for him and his Islamophobic friends to attack Islam and the Muslims, yet when the same is given back to them, in their own style, then they cry foul play! Indeed Wood, when I deal with cowards and hypocrites as yourself I give you the same as you give to others, however when I deal with well mannered people there is a different way in which I talk and address them, you my friend do not come under that category, you are a bigoted hater, and hence I treat you as such.

Sami says that he deals with well-mannered people kindly. Again, please look at Nabeel's comment (which was entirely well-mannered), and Sami's insulting, nasty, mocking tirade. Again, Sami doesn't understand the difference between being critical of a position and just being insulting. I'm critical of Islam. I'm rarely insulting.

He's trying to take a cheap shot at me here, trying to put me down, yet all he does is expose his own idiocy. David, let me fill you in on something, ok? Please pay attention: I AM A WRITER! Did you get that? So when you tell me to enjoy writing articles for my site, I say thank you, I love writing articles for my site, and on top of that my degree is in the field of literature and writing! Writing is my main area, debates are only a side thing for me, not the main area of my work, in point of fact Wood I do not have a debate fetish as yourself, you are the one who is debating every month, yet I only debate 2wice every 3-4 months! It is your miserable career that relies on debates, not mines, and your miserable career just got worst because the Muslims you had planned to debate, are working with me, and they will have nothing to do with you in the future.

Again, I'm disappointed that Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, Hamza, and, according to Sami, every Muslim debater on the planet are willing to side with a 21-year-old, childish, insulting, egomaniac. But that's on them.

So what does this all say? It just shows you the level of hypocrisy within certain crusading Christians, and it also shows you that these Islamophobes are cowards, when they cannot debate or defeat you, they simply want to silence you, yet too bad for Wood he can never silence me or my work.

This is "Nadir Ahmed Syndrome" at its finest. The strategy is to insult people so much that they want nothing to do with you. Then, when people are sick of you and don't want to be in the same room with you, you declare that they're all scared to debate you! (This is coming from a man I've debated three times, a man I've promoted as a debate opponent for Nabeel, James White, and Sam Shamoun. Yes, I'm absolutely terrified of him, just like I'm terrified of Nadir Ahmed.)

Notice that, in his short article, Sami has called me an Islamophobe (multiple times), a clown (multiple times), a coward (multiple times), a hypocrite (multiple times), a bigoted hater, a crusader, and an idiot. This is in addition to all the other insults Sami has hurled in my direction over the last 18 hours. Can anyone question my motives for refusing to deal with Sami until he grows up? Can anyone honestly think that the blacklisting has anything to do with Christians being scared of him?

Sami Zaatari: Another Tragic Victim of "Nadir Ahmed Syndrome"

Those of you who know Nadir are aware of the tragic disorder that has ended his career. Nadir suffers from the first diagnosed case of "Nadir Ahmed Syndrome" (NAS). A person with NAS will exhibit the following symptoms: (1) Delusions of grandeur; (2) Annoying everyone around him; (3) Producing nonsensical websites that make people want to take a bath after a visit; (4) Insulting people for no reason at all, until no one wants to deal with him; (5) Being black-listed; (6) Calling people cowards and other names for refusing to debate. These symptoms have sucked the life out of Nadir's career, and he now seems like a ghost, haunting the halls of the debate world.

Tragically, it seems that Nadir Ahmed Syndrome is contagious. When I was in California back in September, Nadir attended my debates with Sami Zaatari. Sami was fasting, and this must have weakened his immune system. Sami contracted NAS.

Communicating with Sami in the past has been no picnic, but things have gotten much worse since he was infected by NAS. Sami has insulted me, James White, and Nabeel without provocation. When his insults and horrible behavior are pointed out to him, he says he has no clue why anyone is complaining. Sami simply isn't aware of the fact that there are consequences for his actions, and that people just aren't going to put up with a spoiled child who insults everyone and yet expects people to take him seriously.

I have tried to help Sami's career. I helped him share the stage with the famous Daniel Scot. I set up debates between Sami and James White, Nabeel Qureshi, and Sam Shamoun. Indeed, I challenge readers to find a person who has helped Sami as much as I have. And how has he repaid me? By insulting me and my beliefs in every possible way whenever the opportunity arises. In the past few hours, he has called me a coward (repeatedly) and a clown. He has called me a polytheist and has accused me of saying that the God of the Old Testament is an evil, false God. He has called my God homicidal and genocidal. He has single-handedly ended two series of debates in March and April, and he has said that he will convince Shabir Ally never to debate me. In short, Sami now has full-blown NAS. Anyone who wants proof can read the comments on this blog or visit Sami's website.

Not long ago, I predicted that Sami's career would be over within a year (I'm sure Sami remembers). I said this upon seeing the initial symptoms of NAS. It seems I was right. The fact that NAS has claimed the career of such a young man should cause all of us to pause and reflect on how we treat one another. How many more careers will NAS destroy? Let's all remember to take our vitamins--especially Vitamin H (promotes humility and honesty) and Vitamin I (promotes Integrity).

Zakaria Botros: World Magazine's 2008 "Daniel of the Year"

"What happens when an elderly Coptic priest takes to the airwaves and the internet to confront Islam? Death threats, conversions, and a global following. Meet Zakaria Botros, WORLD's 2008 Daniel of the Year." Read More.

Muslim Scholar Declares: "Muhammad Probably Never Existed"

Recently, Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a convert to Islam and a scholar of Islamic theology, shocked the world by declaring that, based on his research, Muhammad probably never existed. (For the news about Kalisch, see "Muslim Academic Questions Muhammad's Existence," "Professor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt," and "Scandal Exposes Islam's Weakness.")

Let's start with the obvious. It's quite common to find Muslim apologists appealing to the most radical, anti-Christian, atheistic writings in their attacks against Christianity. For instance, this past April, as James and I debated Jalal Abualrub, Jalal said that Christians don't have any evidence that Jesus ever existed. Here he could only be basing such a claim on the hyperskeptical nonsense of some of the self-proclaimed "infidels" who write for the Secular Web. (Note: Some of the writers there are actually reasonable scholars--but not the ones who hold that Jesus was a myth.) The Jesus-myth theory has become quite popular in some circles, and Muslims seem quite happy with this (though I'm not sure why Muslims would be so delighted to hear that Jesus never existed; wouldn't this refute Islam?).

But what happens when the same radical skepticism that has been applied to Christianity for the past two centuries is applied to Islam? Kalisch gives us the answer: Muhammad probably never existed.

I have to say that I find such a conclusion to be absolutely absurd. Muhammad existed. There's no other reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Nevertheless, Kalisch's conclusion shows what can happen when Muslims suddenly become consistent in their reasoning. Islam wouldn't last five seconds against the hyperskeptical approach that is used in the West against Christianity.

To sum up the obvious: Consistency is important. If the methodology you use against Christianity would also destroy Islam, either be consistent and reject Islam or abandon your methodology. (The alternative is to defend your right to be inconsistent, as Shabir Ally did in his recent debates with James White. See here for more on this.)

Now for the less obvious. Muslim apologists don't understand how, in the long run, they're actually helping people come to Kalisch's conclusion. When I debate an Adnan Rashid or a Bassam Zawadi, they assure me that the early Muslim community was filled with liars and fools, who would not hesitate to invent false stories. They contend that Muslims passed on countless fabrications. Beyond this, we know that by the time we get to al-Bukhari, there were literally hundreds of thousands of unreliable narrations circulating in the Muslim world.

What's the obvious conclusion here? If the early Muslim scholars weren't reliable, how can we trust anything they said? If the vast majority of ahadith (well over 95%) were unreliable, how can we trust other ahadith circulating in the same community?

As I have pointed out in debates, I have more respect for the early Muslim scholars than Muslims do, which is why I accept much of what they said about Muhammad. But when Muslims have to constantly attack their own sources in order to rescue Muhammad from the embarrassing facts of history, where will such a path lead? It will lead to utter skepticism about the Muslim sources. We'll see how Islam stands up to scrutiny once Adnan and Bassam have convinced the Muslim world that their earliest scholars can't be trusted (and once young Muslims start following Sami Zaatari in showing complete contempt for Islam's greatest scholars--such as Ibn Kathir). I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more Muslims like Kalisch, defending the Muhammad-myth.

Islam's Challenges To 'Universal Human Rights'

My Muslim friends often assure me that the rule about killing apostates only applies in Muslim countries. The problem, as I've noted, is that this isn't what the Muslim sources say. The Muslim sources simply say that apostates are to be killed, and that those who kill apostates will be rewarded in heaven. Unfortunately, this gives Muslims who read al-Bukhari a license to kill. Here's an article discussing what's going on in Europe.

Sabatina James has one wish. She wants to enjoy the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which is 60 years old this week. But the 26-year-old Austrian of Pakistani heritage, in hiding since becoming Christian, is at the center of a storm between Islam and international human rights law.

After converting from Islam a few years ago, James had to flee from a father who wanted her killed for apostasy -- and from Austrian authorities who instead of protecting her, suggested she resolve the conflict by returning to Islam. Read more.

Muslim Leader to Obama: "Convert or Else!"

Most people don't understand what's going on in this video. It just seems like a Muslim shouting harsh words at our future President. But there's much more to this video. Muslims are told to invite people to Islam. If people reject the invitation, Muslims are commanded to fight and kill them (unless they agree to pay the Jizya with the proper amount of humiliation and disgrace). This video, then, is an announcement of Step One--the invitation. When the invitation is refused, Muslims are called to violence.

Daniel Scot vs. Nadir Ahmed: "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"

Nadir likes to post deceptive intros to his videos, and this debate with Daniel Scot is no exception. Nadir declares that Sam Shamoun agreed to debate him on Old Testament violence, and that Sam is too scared to do so. In reality, Sam ageed to debate two topics with Nadir: (1) Old Testament violence, and (2) the Prophethood of Muhammad. It turns out that Nadir refuses to defend Muhammad in a public debate with Sam, and Sam will not debate Old Testament violence until Nadir agrees to defend Muhammad. In other words, Sam Shamoun is the one who wants to debate, and Nadir Ahmed is the one backing down.

(On a different note, I would say that Nadir's embarrassing losses to James White and Sam Shamoun have ended his career, and that no one is under any obligation to debate Nadir. Even Muslims turned against him in both of those debates, and most Muslims will no longer attend a debate if Nadir is a participant.)

In the following debate, Nadir, like most other Muslim apologists, condemns his own prophet. In Sunan Abu Dawud 4434, Muhammad put his hand on a copy of the Torah and swore that it's the Word of God. Nadir condemns the Old Testament and, in the process, condemns the prophet who declared that the Old Testament is the Word of God. Apart from this, Nadir shows that he doesn't have even a basic understanding of Christian doctrine (e.g. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant), and this debate was about Christianity. As viewers have seen in my debates with Sami Zaatari and Adnan Rashid, there isn't a single conceivable situation in which Christians would be called to commit violence.

Understandably, no one, whether Christian or Muslim, wants to see Nadir on stage again. For more on Nadir, visit his page at AI.

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE

A friend just sent me the following comment from a newsletter:

Mumbai Bombings

A Word from Fouad

I was watching the horrific aftermath of the Mumbai bombings on CNN when reporter Fareed Zakaria attempted to explain the events...

Zakaria said that Muslims in India are marginalized. They are not represented in government and they are 3 times more unemployed than people of other religions. Therefore, he concluded, it is easy to radicalize Muslims in India.

But here is my question: What is it about Islam that radicalizes people to kill innocent bystanders? It can't be simply poor living conditions and being unrepresented in government. Thousands of Christians in Muslim countries have the exact same situation. They are unrepresented and unemployed.

Yet we have not seen Coptic Christian terrorists take the Pyramids at Giza, or marginalized Filipino Christians attacking the Burj-al-Arab hotel in Dubai. If Islam teaches peace, as so many scholars insist upon, how can you radicalize a follower of that religion to kill innocent people?

I believe Jesus is right by saying 'if you hate your brother you killed him.' What we saw in India is depravity of humankind. No less, no more. When you harbor hatred, you get murder. I know the feeling! Jesus saved me from my hate, and He can do the same for all people today.

I know what my Muslim friends are going to say. "But Christians have committed violence too!" But this completely misses the point. It is very difficult to pressure dedicated Christians into becoming violent. But with Muslims, all it takes is a cartoon or an offensive book, and people get butchered.

Here's a picture of the Mumbai aftermath:

Adnan Rashid vs. James White: "Does Belief in the Trinity Necessitate Shirk?"

According to the Qur'an, Christians commit shirk because we believe in the Trinity. Yet it is clear that Muhammad (and, apparently, Allah) had no clue what Christians actually believe. According to the Qur'an, Christians believe in a Trinity made up of God, Jesus, and Mary, and they're three separate gods (5:116-117)! (Note: If the Qur'an were the Word of God, we would expect it to accurately represent what we believe.)

No Christians believe that Mary is part of the Trinity. Moreover, belief in the Trinity is thoroughly monotheistic. Hence, the question arises: When our belief is represented accurately, does it necessiate shirk? Of course not. Put simply, if God is a Trinity (which He is), then believing in the Trinity is not shirk, for no partners are being associated with the one True God.