Thursday, March 12, 2009

Censoring the Christian Debater

Here's an interesting post by Keith Truth on his PalTalk debate with Sami Zaatari. Notice the deception and desperation on the part of Muslims. If a Christian tried a stunt like this, Christians would rebuke him. In the Muslim world, however, such tactics are perfectly acceptable. Muslims never cease to amaze me.

63 comments:

Bfoali said...

Just for the record Sami did not mind Keith going to Islam. He wrote it in text allowing Keith to use the topic of Islam. I hope Keith makes it clear that Sami had nothing to do with the dotting but the moderators them selves. I agree the dotting in the beggining was wrong but Sami told the moderators to not do it, or he himself would leave.

Nakdimon said...

Man, I attended the debate and recorded the whole thing. The debate was called because Keith showed them their inconsistency. When Sami debates Islam, he often refers to the Bible to parry attacks on his faith, and then calls his opponents “inconsistent” and believes that we act hypocritically. Yet, when Keith did the same in their debate, Sami wasn’t having that. His excuse: He already challenged Keith to debate Islam. What kind of lame excuse is that? The debate was called for no reason and I think Sami should have stopped the mod from calling it.

Fact is that Sami was challenged to produce verses from the NT, the main body of the Gentile Christians’ adherence, and the best he could do was a parable in Luke 19:11-27 and 2 Timothy 3:16. Then he claimed during the Q&A that he could come up with 50 other verses from the NT to prove that Christianity is NOT a religion of peace. I challenged him to do so, but needless to say, he couldn’t back his claim up.

It was pretty sad that the debate was called. It was a good and lively debate by both participants.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

It just shows the integrity of these muslim missionaries.

Firstly, let me say that I have seen Sami in a debate harshly rebuking a Christian administrator for muting him, and threatning to leave if that the action was repeated. In that case Sami has shown an incredible double standard.

If Sami did not object to the behavior in the debate publically, I would say his integrity as a debator is seriously in jeaopordy, and I personally admired Sami, what a pitty.

I would almost say that there is no point in debating Sami anymore. I just don't know how he will defend his action, and still remain a debator of integrity. If he was he would have cancelled the debate himself.

Secondly Keith, if that happened to me even once in a planned debate I would announce that I am cancelling my part of the debate and leave.

Just make sure that you record the debate to prove that you did not run.

In fact in this debate the Muslims were running for reddoting you.

But unfortunatey this is the nature of islam; nothing surprises me anymore.

I would say from now on,

1. Debate these muslims in Christian rooms, with Christian administrators.

2. Make sure to record the debates.

KeithTruth said...

David,

Thanks for giving this event air time brother. People need to see how deceptive Zaatari and his clan are. God bless and thank you. Now when Sami tries to bring up Bible during Islamic debates everyone will see his double standards.

Hogan,

I did think about leaving however if I were to do so I would have been accused of running so I decided to just debate him and try to convince the moderaters not to dot me before my time started... with little success. Heres the debate and all the proof is there:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5290BCF9DCE4948C

Royal Son said...

When all else fails, dot the Christian.

Seriously, this was not even a debate. Sami AGREED with Keith that Jesus, and Paul all taught peace.

His only problem is with end times violence which is what Islam teaches itself.

Basically Sami couldn't find fault with Christianity in any other way. I found it a very strange topic to tell you the truth but I think Sami was trying to cheekily try his luck on this one.

Great work Keith. I am not surprised they wanted to censor you. Truth is Haram !! :) God bless you brother.

Matthew said...

I once listened to a debate between Zaatari and Shamoun, which sounded extremely edited.

I was also surprised that there were pictures of Jesus, because if I recall correctly, the reason pictures of Muhammed are forbidden is because pictures of all prophets are forbidden.

Part 1/16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKARHpU4WYA

David Wood said...

Bfoali said: "Just for the record Sami did not mind Keith going to Islam. He wrote it in text allowing Keith to use the topic of Islam."

If that's the case then yes, Keith should make a note of this.

But if Sami was fine with Keith pointing out inconsistencies, where did the moderator get the idea that they had agreed not to discuss Islam?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Bfoali wrote:

Just for the record Sami did not mind Keith going to Islam. He wrote it in text allowing Keith to use the topic of Islam. I hope Keith makes it clear that Sami had nothing to do with the dotting but the moderators them selves. I agree the dotting in the beggining was wrong but Sami told the moderators to not do it, or he himself would leave.

Elijah replies:

Exactly but Sami did not leave. If I were in a debate like that and my Christian co-workers behaved in that manner, the debate would be off for me at least, end of story.

But if the room and administration lack integrity what is Sami doing in a place like that anyway?

KeithTruth said...

David,

Bfoali said: "Just for the record Sami did not mind Keith going to Islam. He wrote it in text allowing Keith to use the topic of Islam."

This is lies. The only time Sami said anything was the first time I got dotted 10 seconds into my opening statement! He said let him go that one time.

However throughout the whole debate when I was dotted over and over again , then at the end when it was called and Sami got a full 10 minutes to speak; Sami let them do it. Did not tell them to stop and he was silent about it. So bafoonli, stop lying.

David Wood said...

Did Sami announce during the debate that the Muslim administrators should stop red-dotting Keith (especially after they did it over and over and over again)?

If I were a Muslim (and for some reason didn't believe in Taqiyya), I certainly would have spoken up and said, "All right, we're stopping this debate until you stop red-dotting my opponent. Please, you're embarrassing our religion by employing this deceptive methodology."

Did Sami do something like that?

KeithTruth said...

bfoonli,

Sami never once said that if I get doted he will leave. Infact if you listen to the debate he told the moderaters to do a better job at controlling me. Then they said "we are doing the best we can. Don't tell us how to do our jobs Sami."

So enough lies and if Sami objected to the dotting (which he didn't because he was getting smoked) then Sami would not have let them end my portion of the debate and only let him have last rebuttal closing statements.

Thats another thing that made me angry. The moderater says hes calling the debate, then he says ok Sami do your last rebuttal and closing...I thought he was calling the debate. There it should have been over. But no....they proceeded without me. This proves that the only reason I was dotted (silenced) was because Sami was losing.

David Wood said...

I'll never understand why Muslims are willing to sacrifice their integrity for the sake of a short-term advantage in a debate. Muslims tried to deceive Jay Smith repeatedly about his opponent Shabir Ally. They gave him a false name so that Jay wouldn't know who he's debating (and therefore wouldn't be able to prepare). In my first debate ever, Nadir Ahmed demanded that we exchange criticisms prior to the debate; then, in the debate, he used different criticisms. Now we have Muslims red-dotting Christian debaters to keep them from exposing Islam's double-standards.

People always find out about the deception after the debate. All I can ask is: "Is it worth it? Is it worth a short-term advantage to display Islam's deception to the world?" I for one am glad that many Muslims are willing to openly display the deception at the heart of Islam.

David Wood said...

I think we should have Muslims take an oath before a debate, saying that they will not resort to deception.

Oops. As we saw two posts ago, Muslims are allowed to break their oaths.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

This is all horrible. Sami, what do you have to say?

David Wood said...

I don't think there's anything that can be said in defense of Sami at this point. Bfoali tried to defend Sami with more deception (he made it sound as if Sami had been boldly proclaiming that the administrators should stop red-dotting Keith), but Keith refuted this with the facts.

At this point, all a Muslim can say is: "Yeah, we did it, and we're proud of it. Our religion teaches us to be deceptive towards unbelievers, so that's what we do."

KeithTruth said...

I have been advised by an elder of mine to ignore Sami from now on because is blasphemes Christ. Gving him attention might draw people forth to his blasphemy.

As far as I'm concerned he is blacklisted to me.

Fernando said...

Sami... I'm shocked bie what we were allowed to assiste... how cann anyone, who sees this thingues, think your proceudeur and complicity in this farse is ok? Perhaps you could explainne us all whate you intended to this debate... and whie you acted in such a way... please: feel absolutelie free to expresse your true colours in this blog...

Sami Zaatari said...

I fully supported the admins in dotting Keith, Keith had more than 5 warnins, the topic was on Christianity, and during the debate I told Keith, we can have a seperate 2 hour debate on Islam ALONE so i could crush his weak arguments in that seperate debate instead of wasting time on this debate. so why do you keep running from that point keith? keith here, infront of your own people i will challenge you on IS ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE, so you can bring all those same weak arguments again so that i can properly deal with them. Keith you are a coward, the reason why you refuse to debate Islam seperately is because you tried to be smart, and wanted to bring it up in the Christianity debate, which sadly for you backfired because you ended up looking very weak, too bad for you there are Christians who felt you did so poorly that they actually started sending pms to the admins and were even low on faith thanks to you. so what do you say keith, i repeat the challenge again, so i can refute your distortions that i used double standards, as we will see you have NOTHING.

infact just to expose keiths deception, time was very limited in this debate, we had 5 min rebuttal periods, keith wanted me to adress Christian issues with the Bible, AND ISLAMIC issues, hence he was purposely doing this so i wouldnt have enough time to deal with everything, especially the topic at hand, hey what better way to divert the topic off Christianity by bringing up Islam.

furthermore its time to expose keith, because he keeps acting like an angel, and hogan you are talking about integrity issues etc. well keith has come into this Islamic room on several occasions, and has called the prophet Muhammad a fag, pedophile, and many other insults against the prophet Muhammad and Islam, so who are you guys kidding about integrity????? it is integrity that we allowed this amatuer nooby into the room even AFTER ALL OF THESE INSULTS which he hasnt apologized for. so plz dont come to me about integrity when this foul person continues to do all these things.

on top of that keith constantly attacked the admin of the room, and continues to do so on his article, calling him mentally unstable, telling him to shut up etc etc, and this guy is an elder, so again who are you guys trying to kid on integrity?

Sami Zaatari said...

Infact, why do you guys think i challenged keith for Is Islam a Religion of Peace AND is Christianity a Religion of peace???? because this would precisely show no double standards where being used by me, it would allow me to have one entire debate to cover the Islamic issue, showing i am being completely consistent. offcourse keith refused because he knew he would be completely crushed in a sole debate for Islam, but knew if the debate is on Christianity, then he can make little hits on Islam while i am debating Christianity. Keith you are a coward, you talk big, but your a coward, you know you are, who are we kidding? you conveniantly black list me knowing i am still after you for the Islam Peace debate? if anyone should be blacklisted it should be you after all your insulting without apology.

Sami Zaatari said...

David, Nabeel, what if i came to this blog, and called Jesus a Fag, and called Paul a homosexual deranged lunatic, etc etc? would you even bother with me???? offcourse not, i would be blacklisted faster than you can say dubai! lets also add more, lets say i tell David Wood, who is older than me, and this is his site, and i tell him hey David shut up! your mentally unstable etc etc. would you guys bother with me? so please Keith stop acting so nice, and saying you blacklist me, LOL, you black-list me? your trying to take some high ground? your lucky that we didnt black list me, and it was because of me you had a chance to even debate in that room.

so this is what Keith does, he comes to that Islamic room, and does these insults on Islam. i hope you guys will apply the same standard to keith, since we are tallking about integrity arent we.

KeithTruth said...

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. Sami supported me getting dotted for doing the same thing he has done in his own debates. Save this post of his.

Secondly me noting that in order for you to condemn certain things in the Bible you must also condemn Islam is merely showing how pathetic your arguments are and how your double standards shine through your teeth.

As for your red herring of challenging me to debate islam. That was just your excuse so you wouldn't have to deal with the arguments I presented and admit your double standards. This is also why you encouraged the "mods" to dot me numerous times. You are a coward and a moron. A deceptive serpent.

Third, bring these Christians here who said that their faith was tested because of the debate. It is convenient they were pm's and not voiced in the Q&A isn't it ladies and gentlemen? Can you provide those pm's Sami you deceiver?

As for the time limit you liar. I'm the one who argued for longer rebuttals and you refused you sleep in the bed you made for yourself. And no that is not why I showed your double standards. I showed them because when doing so it reveals how pathetic your arguments are.

When you blaspheme Christ and call him a "lying hypocrite, running" rat etc... Then I will say some things about that false prophet. You provoke Christians in order to say what you just said to me regarding integrity. It shows your two-faced agenda.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I still call this double standard.

We all know that Muslims continually change the topics to reveal what they supposedly consider to be Christian double standard.

As I mentioned, there is a debate on youtube between you and someone else where you explicitly refused to engage in further debating when, being approached by the admin for changing (from islam to the Bible) the topic in revealing the opponents double standard.

In this debate Keith similarly attempted to prove your double standard and inconsistency in attacking the Christian, and you muslims simply don't like it.

The fact is, if you and Keith have planned a debate, it would be obvious that the opponent is free to defend his position whether he applies apologetics or polemics, that is normalcy of debating.

But obviously now you Muslim demand to put the words in the Christian mouth when a debate takes place; this is pathetic.

For you or the admin to reddot the opponent because he points out the inconsistency in your arguments is a extremely lame and ridicolous excuse.

What happened in this debate is exactly what the title of this thread implies, namely that the Christian opponent was censored.

That is a shame and lack of integrity for you muslims, take that in your pocket.

As to your demand of Keith to apologize for calling Muhammad a fake or pedofile, well think about it the Qur'an is a fake, the Qur'an claims the previous revelatiosn to be the word of God while contradicting its doctrine, the Qur'an is virtually packed with plagiarized material of Greek science and Jewish fables; of course the Qur'an is a fake.

And was your prophet a pedofile, well he engaged in sex with a nine year old when he himself was over fifty; this practice even broke with the ethics of Jewish culture. Even though I try to be political correct here, and I would ussually not get into a room a make such a statement, it is still impossible for me to state that he was not a pedofile. What else do you call a man who sleeps with little girls?

How on earth do you expect Christians to look into all this and simply exclaim that Islam is ok and that your prophet is ok?

When you claim that our Bible is corrupt and that Jesus was merely a prophet, you insult the Christians in the same way.

I do understand that the attack on Muhammad is a bit more robust, but what else can you expect, the man encouraged the rape of female slaves, he allowed muta marriages and slept with a nine year old girl.

If you historically can point out similar negatives about Jesus then by all means bring it up; and I would not be offended if you could prove it. But the bottom line is both sides point areas of criticism that we find obvious.

KeithTruth said...

Also when that "mod" "called the debate" that means it is over. However because of the bias and the realization that your muslim brothers had of you getting smoked; they let you do your last rebuttal and closing statement alone with me dotted permanantly unable to respond.

I look forward to obtaining the audio of your last remarks from muslims so I can refute it in a series of videos using many sources. You said some things about constantine that I am going to enjoy refuting.

Also Sami since you permitted me getting dotted and even went along with doing your last rebuttal and closing statement without me, this shows that you know you lost the debate. For if you were confident you won, you wouldn't have went along with it out of fairness. But out of desperation, since you got smoked, you did a long diatribe without me being aloud to respond you coward.

This is Islam ladies and gentlemen. Sami I was not impressed by your performance and you are blacklisted. Since I destroyed you and Nadir, its time to move onto more respected muslim aopolgists.

Sami Zaatari said...

No, it isnt double standards, hogan this is why again, let us debate Is Islam a religion of peace to show i was not using double standards, why refuse? he refuses because he cant debate it.

i gave him the chance to debate it he said no, hence the debate was on christianity. it seems you cant follow that point, i say lets debate Islam, he says no, Christianity, therefore the debate is no longer on Islam, he had his chance.

hogan, if we want to use your logic, then why would david wood get offended at me last time when i called your God evil, genocidal etc etc? after all entire nations and people were killed by the sword in your book by the orders of your God, so plz dont use these excuses. i mean now we truly see where the integrity is, when a Christian calls Muhammad a pedohile, you say oh well its true, when we call your God genocidal etc, oh were being rudeeeeeeeee and evillll. will your double standards ever end?

hogan, and you missed the part about calling my prophet a fag, why did you conveniantly ignore that point? why did you conveniantly ignore the part to keiths insults against the owners as well? you know why?

Keith, the challenge is up again, i cant run now, if i do, everyone will see, so will you debate Is Islam a religion of Peace, so i can crush your arguments and show i used no double standards. offcourse you cant, stop making exuses saying i wont show, when its the other way round.

ben malik said...

There you have it folks. More evidence from Sami that he is an inconsistent lying hypocrite. In one debate when a Christian told him to stop bringing up the OT Sami the slithering serpent yelled at him saying that he wouldn't let the Christian get away with this since the appeal to the OT served the purpose of exposing the Christian's inconsistencies.

Keith, great job of providing another instance of Sami implementing the sharia of Mo-ham-head in respect to the use of lies, deception, and double standards. Mo perfected these sciences to a tee with the help of his spirit.

Sami Zaatari said...

let me repeat, i had no inconsistencies in my debate, so hogan you are spreading false info, whats worst is your man keith is too coward to debate the topic so i can prove it, this is why i keep saying and kept saying in that debate, we could have a seperate debate on Islam, to see if i was being inconsistent, lol you see you have nothing on me.

im giving you the chance, to have a single sole debate to expose my 'inconsistencies' and your rep wont take it, who are you trying to kid?????? ive said enough on this issue, theres nothing more to say, keith when you become a man, come debate me on Is Islam a Religion of Peace. until then stay tuned until we post the debate on MBC's channel so more ppl can listen to the debate, and more people will see just how bad you did.

Fernando said...

Sami... all the points you made lost ebery streight since you started insulting people (specialy Paul an Jesus our commom God) in this blog... no one precieded you in thatt...

could you pleasse explain to us all whie calling Muhammad a "pedophile" is an insult?

perhaps you could start bie saying whatte you mean bie "pedophile"?

would you agree that a "pedophile" is an adult personn who as an affective and/ore efective sexual inclination for prepubescent children?

would you agree that Muhammed married baby Aiesha when she was 6 and consumed the marriege when she was 9?

this is an hot topic that enfuriated Osama Abdoula and perhaps you can eliminate all our debts...

David Wood said...

Sami,

If Keith was coming into Muslim discussion rooms and insulting people, then the Muslims there had every right to block him, to avoid him, to black-list him, etc. So I have no disagreements with you on this.

Further, if Keith had been invited for a debate on a probationary level (e.g. "Keith, you can talk as long as you don't start insulting people"), and if he then violated the terms, I would have no objections to the administrator red-dotting him.

But that doesn't sound like what happened here. It sounds like you two agreed to a debate, with no agreement about not pointing out inconsistencies. Then, when Keith started pointing out inconsistencies, your Muslim associates red-dotted him, and you supported their actions.

Fernando said...

Sami... I forgot to aske...

I saw youre debate with Doctor James White...

coulde you tell me what kind of hair phollicle medicine do you use in order to habe susch an imponent hair (one of the beste aspects in your presentation...)?

I habe a friende who suffers from hypotrichosis... thanks...

Bfoali said...

David you always seem to make an attack on Taqqiya can you please tell me what you in your own words think Taqqiyah is?
Secondly when Keith was dotted the first time he threatned leave the debate, and he yelled at the moderators this was in text not on mic. Also when Keith was dotted for bringing up Islam, Sami on text told the moderator ''its ok he is wasting his own time''.
Keith if you could please post the vide clipp of the debate people would see what I am talking about.
Thirdly Keith just accpet Samis debate on Islam.I would be honoured to moderate it. I personally was angry and anoyed by the moderators your debate but if they didnt want you bring up islam thats their choice.
Also Sami had no time to respond as the rules were applied there were very little time to respond.

I dont know if Sami still wants to do the debate with Keith on ''Islam a religion of Peace''
I and David can open our own room and be the moderators. Ultimatley this is up to Keith and Brother Sami to decide.

David Wood said...

Bfoali said: "David you always seem to make an attack on Taqqiya can you please tell me what you in your own words think Taqqiyah is?"

As I understand it, Taqiyya is deceiving someone for some "good" purpose, e.g. defeating unbelievers in battle, protecting oneself, etc. Since Muslims believe that criticism against Muhammad is a kind of war against Islam, Muslims often believe it's okay to deceive people in debates as well.

Royal Son said...

Sami, please take the time to answer these questions:

1. According to your Quran, did Allah kill men women and children through the flood at the time of Noah?

2. You already said that Jesus and his disciples taught peace so I won't question you on this part of the NT.

3. Does Islam teach that there will be war in the end times?

4. Since nothing can change Allah's word (surah 10:64,surah 6:34) and the Torah was indeed preserved (Surah 32:23), why is it that you object to passages found in it which discuss violence?

5. Does God as the author of life have the right to punish sinners with death whether directly or indirectly through His people?

Thank you.

KeithTruth said...

Bfoali,

Sami just admitted that he supported the dotting.


and Sami,

You got your wish and I crushed you in the topic you picked. If you want to debate a second topic I will be picking it since you picked the last one via email.

So lets do it. Did constantin invent trinity? You made that claim. I await your response. We will do it in a Christian room moderated by the Christians.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Just make sure Keith that Sami is reddotted whenever he says anything that offends Christianity or whenever he deviates from the topic.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

The bottom line is, if you agree on a debate in public, neither party or its moderators are permitted to reddot or control the response of the opposing party.

In that case this was not a debate.

I suggest as Keith demands here that the next debate occurs in a Christian room with Christian moderators and if Sami or any other muslims is reddotted, they have nothing to complain about since this is the approach they cherish.

Whatever, the muslims have clearly failed to effectively moderated a debate in simple honesty and this kicks back upon their integrity!

I would certainly not engage in a debate in a muslim room with muslim moderators after such an experience.

KeithTruth said...

http://keithtruth.blogspot.com/2009/03/sami-zaatari-deceptive-hypocrite.html

The Fat Man said...

Bfoali said
"Just for the record Sami did not mind Keith going to Islam. He wrote it in text allowing Keith to use the topic of Islam. I hope Keith makes it clear that Sami had nothing to do with the dotting but the moderators them selves. I agree the dotting in the beggining was wrong but Sami told the moderators to not do it, or he himself would leave."

I was the time keeper during that debate, and this is completly untrue as Sammi himself has said
"I fully supported the admins in dotting Keith"

Does anyone else find it funny that after Bfoali stated something that is completly untrue and then asks David Wood for his meaning of Taquia.

Bfoali said...
David you always seem to make an attack on Taqqiya can you please tell me what you in your own words think Taqqiyah is?

I think Bfoali has given us by his false statements the perfect definiton of Taqqiyah. Thanks Bfoali.

The Fat Man said...

Keith

I understand your frustration, however I think it is wrong to call people stupid, idiots, etc...

I dont think its wrong to call people's argumetns stupid, idiotic.

Just thought I would mention it before we get accused of behaving like muslim :)

KeithTruth said...

The fat man,

I agree and I apologize to everyone for that. I accept your rebuke. God bless.

Bfoali said...

Fat Man,
I cnt believe what you just said!
You just made a blatant lie. I cant believe it. I hope someone recorded it as a video so I can expose you and shut you up. I did not lie at all. Sami told Aissa that its ok let him go to islam he is wasting his time. Are you denying this happned? If you do then sdjslkdjslkdjslkdjl.

El-Cid said...

Sami said: "i mean now we truly see where the integrity is, when a Christian calls Muhammad a pedohile, you say oh well its true, when we call your God genocidal etc, oh were being rudeeeeeeeee and evillll. will your double standards ever end?"

Anyone else notice the HUGE flaw in this comparison Sami just made?

Muhammad is a creature created by God! This just makes me laugh, the way Muslims go on and on about Shirk lecturing Christians about "associating partners" but at every turn they say and do things that elevate Muhammad above creation. Even to the point of (as Sami just did) making a direct comparison between the place of God for a Christian and the place of Muhammad for a Muslim.

It's important to realize the only reason Sami actually bothers to debate the "Is Christianity a religion of peace" topic:

Because it gives him a chance to attack the Old Testament. By this he hopes to accomplish two things; 1. Shake the faith of Christians that have not thought through these issues, 2. Demonize the Bible in the eyes of Muslims that have no familiarity with the text.

His performance in the debate itself is really secondary for Sami. All one has to do to confirm what I am saying, is view his behavior in the debates and the comments he makes here and elsewhere.

[And as a side benefit for him, he gets to express his hatred for God (the true God, Yahweh, described in the Bible). If you've ever wondered why Sami seems to borrow so heavily from atheistic arguments when he handles the Old Testament, this is the reason. He hates God every bit as much as a rabid atheist. Sami; however, has chosen a false religion as a pretext to act out his rebellion against God].

Stephanie said...

Mr. Zataari,

I didn't have much time to read all these comments, but after reading your reply, and I quote, "David, Nabeel, what if i came to this blog, and called Jesus a Fag, and called Paul a homosexual deranged lunatic, etc etc? would you even bother with me???? offcourse not, i would be blacklisted faster than you can say dubai!" I have to ask a question.

Where did Mr. Thompson ever start blaspheming Muhammad? Because I don't see the correlation between being censored for discussing Islam and personally attacking Muhammad. That is a rather awful analogy; there is a difference between offensive/obnoxious and calmly speaking about a subject.

The point everyone seems to be making is that Mr. Thompson shouldn't have been censored since a "hands of Islam" clause was never agreed upon. When the subject of Islam being a religion of peace is debated, attacks on Christianity are a given.

In my opinion, there should be an extensive written agreement composed pre-debate. Adding in rules and regulations simply because they were not spoken of previously is deceptive--it doesn't make the deceivers, or what they represent, look good. Even if it wasn't intentional, it would have been fairer to postpone the debate until sound rules were established.

Call me crazy, but I think that would be the noble way of handling things.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Well this turned into a fun thread really quickly.

Bfoali said...

Hey Steph,
I am not to sure of the date,
but indeed Keith did attack the Prophet Muhammad I am not aware of the details, but he did indeed attack the prophet (not in a constructive way). I think this is why the admin of the room were so anoyed by Keith.

Nakdimon said...

Oh my, I got a nice challenge from Sami. He has cancelled the debate on Muhammad that we were supposed to have this weekend. Sami’s excuse was that he wouldn’t debate me on Muhammad as long as I or Keith don’t agree on debating “Is Islam a religion of peace” first. I think this is a smoke screen for two reasons.

1 Islam is so obvious NOT a religion of peace. If Islam advocates peace, then Christianity is a religion of Utopia.

2 Sami knows that as long as he doesn’t debate “Is Islam a religion of peace” first, this episode will keep haunting him and prevents him from referring to the Bible when his prophet is attacked, which is something he can’t afford. He NEEDS the Bible to try to make his prophet look good.


So I say, Sami, keep running. You have noticed your own double standards and try to fix your error as subtly as you can, without admitting error. As you said in one of your debates in a Christian room “In a formal debate you don’t dot even if you don’t like what I say, so be man enough…”. Now, you did a 180 on Keith and reneged on your own statement.

Sorry pal, but you always demand consistency from your opponent, but look at what you’re doing. You don’t even meet your own standards. Doesn’t that make one a “lying hypocrite”, per your own standards? Isn’t that what you called Yeshua, our Messiah, in the debate you did with me, based on the story of the adulteress?

Royal Son said...

bfoli: If a person is believed to be a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, an adulterer, a thief and a liar, do you think such a person deserves respect?

Can you understand from an objective point of view that people might have very very big problems with things Mohammad has done even if you don't? If we have big problems about a person doing such things, and we speak about him the same way we would anyone else who would be involved in such things as a matter of consistency, then can you understand why we do what we do? I'm not asking you to agree with our views of Mohammad, but understand that we feel very strongly about him because of looking at his life from an outsider's point of view.

By the way, Keith, I saw your latest video. Pinpoint precision there. Well done.

Fernando said...

Bfoali saide: «I am not to sure of the date, but indeed Keith did attack the Prophet Muhammad. I am not aware of the details, but he did indeed attack the prophet (not in a constructive way)»

I habe underlinned the more important off your words... so: you don'te know nothing fore sure... ok... it's tipicall with muslims apologie since you neber can know for sure what Muhammad saide/did since you habe a mountain off contradicting hadiths... the same with allah's words/will since the qur'an is full off contradictions... but the problemm persists: you can't presentt any argumentes upon suppositions or hear sayd... without proofs there is no argument/evidence...

Then Bfoali saide: «I think this is why the admin of the room were so anoyed by Keith»... The administrator must be neutral... if he can't put his personnal fealings upon is back to me an "ADMINISTRATOR" he should not be doing thate... but the: bie your arguments no moderator coulde be impartial and neutral with any muslim apologist since you all habe been offensive to Christian faithe and God...

Stephanie: You're absolutely correcte... but eben "written rules" to an islamic apologist is allways an "ilusion" since they are not moraly binden to anytrhing than to defende and promote islam... not the truth... and that's a common problem...

p.s.: I hoppe your "Sadie the Demon Dog" is ok...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Bfoali wrote:

Hey Steph,
I am not to sure of the date,
but indeed Keith did attack the Prophet Muhammad I am not aware of the details, but he did indeed attack the prophet (not in a constructive way). I think this is why the admin of the room were so anoyed by Keith.

Elijah wrote:

You got to be joking, muslims on pal-talk continually attack the Christian faith, the Bible, the Christian God and Jesus. So what if Keith exposed your prophet, tast your own medicine.

We are here not considering Keith's criticism of islam on other occasions, in that case nobody can debate, we are condemning the behaviour of muslims in administrating a debate, in which both parties ought to have the right to argue they find suitable.

If Keith decided to prove the inconsistency in Sami's arguments (which were many), so what? Muslims do that the entire time, Sami does that, Ali Atai did nothing else in debating David Wood; do I need to list the entire gang of muslim missionaries.

The bottom line is that changing the topic, deviating and pointing out inconsistincey is much more a muslim approach than a Christian.

We see it even here, at the moment, we criticise the dishonest administration of a Muslim pal-talk room in handling the debate, and you and Sami point out that Keith has attacked your prophet on other occasions, as if that has got anything to do with the matter.

Again I say taste your own medicine.

And Sami yes the behavour of the muslims on this occassion clerly reveals mental issues. There you have it.

What you did was wrong, bad, inconsistent, dishonest, desparate, suppressive.

Notice that both you and Bfoali disagree about what happened on the debate.

And that is a lack of integrity.

Stephanie said...

Bfoali,

If it was not during the debate, that information is not relevant. Moderators have a right to be suspicious of behavior, but must otherwise remain unbiased. Unless Mr. Thompson was, as you say, unconstructively attacking Muhammad throughout the course of this debate, then the mods would have the right to censor him. But the "Islam is off-hands during this debate" defense doesn't work either since these specific terms were not agreed upon in the first place. The moderators should have just let it go.

The Fat Man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Fat Man said...

Bfoali I never said you lied, I never said you were a liar. I said what you said was untrue. Now it could be untrue becasue you were mistaken. People make mistakes all the time, it does not mean they deleberitly lied. The fact is what you said is completely untrue. Now I dont know your motives, I assume that you made a mistake in memory and not a deleberate lie.


Bfoali said...
You just made a blatant lie.

Bfoali, it is evident that not only did you not listen to the debate, you dont even read the comments by the man you are supporting.

Sammi said
"I fully supported the admins in dotting Keith,"

Its the first senentece in his first post. I dont see how you could of missed that.

Now lets assume that what you said is accurate. That sammi did write in the ext that he did not mind keith using islam, and that Sami told the moderators to not do it, or he himself would leave."

This is your defence.
Did sammi leave? NO he kept right on going after each dot.

Did Sammi protest on the mic
NO, he didnt say a word.

As a matter of fact after Keith was dotted for the last time, and the moderator declared the debate over, He gave Sammi, Kieths remaining time on the mic to fisnihs up leaving Keith dotted.

SO what are we to make of these FACTS.

1. You have just said that Sammi is not a man of his word since he did not protest or leave the debate.

2. Since Sammi himself has said that he fully supported the moderators dotting Keith, I find your position un defensable since it is contrary to what Sammi has said.

SO wich is it, is Sammi not a man of his word. OR were you mistaken, or did you deleberitly LIE?

The Fat Man said...

Bfoali
I think I understand the reason for your untrue statement.

Keith Was dotted 28 seconds into his opening statement. The reason why he was dotted was becasue he prayed to God that he would be able to expose Sammi and the "Lies he says about you and your people" i.e. Christians. That is why he was dotted becasue the admin then said "NO PERSONAL REMARKS". Nothing about islam, nothing about your prophet. It was for a personal remark.

Sammi then typed in the text to let him continue with his opening statement if he wants to waist his time.

Thats it, nothing about allowing kieth to use islam, nothing about leaving if Keith was dotted.

Sir you are mistaken. I sugest you listen to the debate before you make comments on it, and read what sammi himself has typed in response to what happend in this blog. Before you start calling me a liar.

The Fat Man said...

Bfoali Said
"but indeed Keith did attack the Prophet"

I was there in that room one time when Kieth was accused of attacking your prophet. One of the admins in the room was saying some horable things about Mary and Jesus and GOD. He was saying that adultry according to Christians is having sex with someone who is not your wife. That this makes God and Mary adulterers, and Jesus a Bastard. Since Mary was not Gods wife when God had Sex with Mary. He got a big laugh out of what he was saying. All the muslims in the room found it quite funny.

Now you tell me, is such a statement offensive?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

To compare the virgin birth of Jesus to divine adultary is indeed offencive fat man.

The fact is however, that God never engaged in sex with Mary, and if the Biblical account implies adultary so does the Qur'anic. That the Muslims on pal-talk found this funny only reveals how far off the islamic religion is from God. Intentionally or not they have no problem to mock the living God. This is tantamount to the nature of the Beast in the Book of Revelation, as specific aspect of its nature is the mocking of God and his servants.

Firstly it seems that muslims find it perfectly ok and acceptable to offend others, while it is simply out of orders to criticize their own belief.

Most muslims today are not even muslims; the fact is that Osama Abdallah, Sami, Bassam and the rest of the gang are not proper muslims according to the Qur'an.

Firstly they believe that God's word was corrupted which totally contradicts the Qur'an (in fact a muslim needs to believe the previous revelations as they appeared in Muhammad's time); I wish we could call them Muhammadists instead of muslims, but even Muhammad believed in the integrity of the previous revelations.

Secondly, they apply naturalistic methods on the Bible and now we hear from Ibn that we cannot even trust the Qur'an's attestation to the fact that Jesus raised people from the dead.

I have to say I am confused about what a Muslim truly is.

ben malik said...

If you really want to see who should be embarrassed by their virgin birth storiesthen simply mention to Muslims what surahs 21:91 and 66:12 say, and ask an Arab Christian to confirm what about to write here.

According to these texts Mary guarded her farjaha, which means her opening, which in this context means her private part or sexual organ. And in surah 66:12 it says that Allah breathed his spirit into it, feehi. It doesn't say into her, feeha, as in surah 21:91.

So according to the Quran Allah breathed his spirit into Mary's opening, or private part in order to get her pregnant.

Here is a quote of a Muslim taken from Shamoun's article,

"The language of this verse (author- Luke 1:35) is clearly circumspect. It implies no sexual union or divine generation of any kind. Furthermore, while Luke's description agrees both in form and spirit with the Qur'anic idea of the conception of Christ, the language of the Qur'an IS FAR MORE GRAPHIC AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION." (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Christian-Muslim Encounters, ed. Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad & Wadi Z. Haddad [University Press of Florida, 1995], p. 67)

"... Then of Mary He (author-allegedly God) continues: ‘And she who guarded well [lit. fortified] her chastity [lit. GENERATIVE ORGAN], and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign [or miracle, 'Aya] for all beings’ (S. 21:90-91) ...

"In the second instance the Qur'an speaks of Mary as a righteous woman who lived in strict chastity and obedience to God: ‘And Mary daughter of 'Imran who guarded well her GENERATIVE ORGAN farjaha, and thus We breathed INTO HER of our spirit’ (S. 66:12). THE BOLD AND GRAPHIC STATEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE SHOCKED TRADITIONISTS AND COMMENTATORS, so that most of them tried to cover it up with different and FARFETCHED significations or glossed over it with out comment...

"Ibn Kathir interprets the phrase ‘guarded well her generative organ’ to mean: ‘safeguarded and protected it. Guarding well ihsan signifies chastity and high birth.’ He comments on the phrase, ‘and thus We breathed into it of our spirit’ thus ‘that is, through the angel Gabriel. This is because God sent him to her, and he took for her the form of a man of good stature (S. 19:17). God commanded him to breathe INTO THE BREAST OF HER CHEMISE. HIS BREATH WENT DOWN AND PENETRATED HER GENERATIVE ORGAN, AND THUS CAUSED HER TO CONCEIVE JESUS ...’" (Ibid.)


"Abu Ja'far al-Tusi, the jurist doctor of the Shi'i community, as well as his well known disciple al-Tabarsi, read the words, ‘We breathed INTO IT’ literally. Al-Tusi says: ‘It has been held that Gabriel BREATHED INTO MARY'S GENERATIVE ORGAN then God created Christ in it’ ..." (Ibid., p. 68)

Here is the link for Shamoun's paper - http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/virginalconception.htm

The more one studies Islam the more one discovers how filthy and disgusting Muhammad and his taghut really were.

ben malik said...

Surprise, surprise! The shiits have come out with a comprehensive look at the corruption of the Quran. In this online work they quote their own books and scholars to show that they believe it isn't ocrrupted but then quote Sunnis works to prove that it is the Sunnis that admit that the Quran has been changed! Here it is guys,

http://answering-ansar.org/answers/tahreef/en/index.php

Great stuff to use against Muslims who claim that the Quran has never been changed. hehehe

The Fat Man said...

Ben funny thing I did mention that about there Idea of the conception of Jesus and what do you think there response was. DENIAL

Dk said...

Sami ALWAYS does this.

proven hypocrite.

XIA said...

Every one saw that keith failed to take up the first challenge of Sami.

and keith went off topic all the time and time again listen to debate again if u didnt heard that :)

XIA said...

First Challenge that Sami put that condemning OT or saying it was fine keith failed at it

XIA said...

he was doted after 4 or 5 warnings
and he didnt bring the Islamic topic to answer the question

instead it was just a lame try to divert the topic and he tried to ask the seprate question instead of question raised by SAMI

He failed at first challenge posted by Sami :)

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

XIA

You seem to avoid the real matter here.

Firstly no ruled were agreed upon. Keith did not agree on these rules prior to the debate.

Secondly, Sami himself has stated that the debator has the right to debate in his own manner in a offical debate. Hence these rules are inconsistent and muslims would never apply them to themselves.

What happened here was inconsistent with what Sami himself considers a reasonable manner of arguing and with what muslims tend to do when debating.

So all your talk about rules and warnings are plainly embarrasing for islam.

I agree with Sami here, be men enough to keep your opponent undotted. But because islamic missionaries tend to be covards, what else can we expect?

Fernando said...

XIA... still entering trught the "back door"? do you need a wooden sticke?

According to Tafseer Durre Manthur Ayat Hars, some off that may bee OK for muslims, but ounce again your postes prove your lack of honesty has brotther Hogan showed... wie do you not shoew your true colors is recente threads?