Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Advice to a Young Muslim Apologist--Part One: Avoiding Nadir Ahmed

Our new friend Ehteshaam has decided to be an apologist and a debater. Since several of us on this blog made the same decision years ago, I think we should help Ehteshaam with some advice that may be helpful to him. In this post, I would like to share some thoughts about Nadir Ahmed.

In our recent debate, Ehteshaam recommended Nadir's website as a good source of information about Christianity and Islam. I am not aware of a single meaningful critique of Christianity on Nadir's site, and I've never seen a reasonable defense of Islam by Nadir. Thus, while I understand pointing people to Bassam Zawadi's website for information (Bassam is an excellent apologist), I have no clue why anyone would send people to Nadir's site. (The first time Nabeel visited www.examinethetruth.com, he called me and said he felt like he needed to take a bath afterwards.)

I can only assume that Ehteshaam isn't aware of Nadir's reputation among Christians and Muslims, so I will offer some information.

Nadir attacks any Muslim apologist who is more qualified than he is (and I can't think of a Muslim apologist less qualified than Nadir). For instance, Nadir refers to Shabir Ally (one of Islam's top debaters) as a "dummy." He also says that Shabir is "weak-minded," and that debating Shabir is like debating someone's grandmother!

Nadir is known for his violent tendencies as well. Indeed, Nadir even threatens his fellow Muslims! Consider the following email, in which Nadir threatens to kill Osama Abdallah, a Muslim apologist. Nadir also accuses Osama Abdallah of having a homosexual relationship with Sami Zaatari. (NOTE: I put stars over some words due to Nadir's foul language.)

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

(For more on Nadir's violent character, see "Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya.")

I first met Nadir when we debated in 2006. As I documented here, Nadir deceptively got me to exchange criticisms with him prior to the debate (i.e. he gave me the criticisms he would use against Christianity, and I gave him the criticisms I would use against Islam). This was my first encounter with Taqiyya--the Muslim belief that it's morally acceptable to deceive people in order to defend Islam. When Nadir started debating, he used criticisms that were quite different from the ones he had sent me. (I've found it very difficult to trust Muslim apologists since then.)

Nadir's career as a debater should have officially ended after his crushing defeat at the hands of Sam Shamoun (one of the most one-sided debates in history, as the audience poll shows). Even Muslims were condemning Nadir's performance. In an act of complete desperation, Nadir even came on this blog under a false name and praised his own debate skills! (For more on Nadir's pitiful efforts to defend his poor performance, click here, here, and here.)

Nadir should have retired. Instead, he took a trip to James White's church and challenged James to a debate. When a Muslim comes to your church and challenges you, there isn't much choice. So James debated Nadir, and Nadir failed even more miserably than he did in his debate with Sam. Indeed, in the middle of the debate (on the reliability of the New Testament), Nadir started answering allegations that he has sex with prostitutes! Who thinks like this?

We will be examining Nadir's claims and character more closely in some posts that will follow. But it should be clear to Ehteshaam that associating himself with Nadir is disastrous. Christians regard Nadir as a deceptive, egomaniacal, violent, ignorant man who cares far more about himself than he does about Islam. Many Muslims share this view. Thus, when giving a conclusion, should a young Muslim apologist recommend the works of Nadir Ahmed?

It's one thing to be friends with Nadir. It's something else to say that he's a good apologist or that people should study his writings. Hence, my first piece of advice to Ehteshaam is this: Don't mention your association with Nadir Ahmed. It will only hurt your credibility.

For more on Nadir, visit Answering Islam's page here.

46 comments:

Fernando said...

I'm afraiede that this poste will habe the totally opposite efefct it wantes to habe...

it's a good and truthfull advice to Doctor Ehteshaam... butt iff he has been indoctrinated bie Nadir Ahmed he might think this is a tactic off inverted psychologie and might juste get more connected to teh latter...

I'll be praying thate thate won't happen... eberyone who walkes the path of truth will gett closer to the only true God, The Holy Trinity...

Ibn said...

Funny how in advising wannabe apologists about avoiding Nadir Ahmed due to his lack of knowledge and integrity, you make yourself out to be no less qualified than him when it comes to Islam. Consider this comment:

"This was my first encounter with Taqiyya--the Muslim belief that it's morally acceptable to deceive people in order to defend Islam."

That's not what Taqiyaah means. Despite being told a number of times about its actual denotation, you and your groupies continue to parade the same lie time and again.
Ironically, the only people who adhere to that definition of Taqiyyah, as evidenced from their posts, are you guys!

Nakdimon said...

Man, I listened to Sam's opening statement in the debate with Nadir. OOH MY DAYUM!!! This was nothing but a school example of a massacre. David is right, this debate should have ended his carreer. But as stubborn as Nadir is, he still is debating and got humiliated by James White again.

But I have heard Nadir say something in his opening statement that I will make a video about and expose the Muslim double standards and deception once more. We cant have enough of these examples out there.

Thanks for reminding of the massacre of Sam Shamoun when he roasted Nadir Ahmed, the Taqiyah become flesh.

Matthew said...

That email he send to Osama looks quite bizarre. How would you feel if someone would insult you and end it with "Thanks"??

IslamSINS said...

"I can only assume that Ehteshaam isn't aware of Nadir's reputation among Christians and Muslims ..."

I'm not to sure that Nadir has the intellectual acumen that would make him aware of his reputation. He is a maggot in a cesspool.

"Nadir started answering allegations that he has sex with prostitutes! Who thinks like this?"

Nadir isn't capable of having a thought. If he ever had one, it died from loneliness.

Ehteshaam is very young, very inexperienced, and not yet worthy of wearing the "debator's hat". If he follows Nadir as an example, he can only deterioriate. What we heard last Sunday, will be Ehteshaam's shining moment, if he uses Nadir as his role model.

There is a website by a fellow Muslim, devoted to the topic, Nadir, the King of Fools. Ouch! I'd put the link here, but the last time I visited, it, too, triggered my anti-virus program (as does Abdallah's). Its intro reads, "Nadir Ahmed is an orator [of absurdities and insignificance], a public nuisance with his “can” full of half-baked disinformation Nadir Ahmed is a king of fools ..."

The site belongs to a Mr. Waheed, who goes into some detail why Nadir is a plague and a scourge on Islam, "increasing hostilites between Christians and Muslims ..." (is that even possible?), describing Nadir's "unIslamic and plain evil" methods of attacking others.

Nadir describes himself in grandiose terms, "I'm a Muslim apologist ... I have posed some questions to the Christians which they admitted they did not have the answer to." Nadir wouldn't know how to formulate a coherent question, so we know that self-serving opinion is a lie.

Waheed goes on to elaborate on some of Nadir's public ignorance (only some, because it would take a library to contain all of Nadir's public stupidity), saying Nadir's knowledge of Islam is "non existing", and Waheed fears that his influence on the young, ignorant Muslims will perpetuate the image of Islamic ignorance.

"Therefore, the entire blame is on Nadir Ahmed for (a)violating Qur'aanic injunction (b) causing futher prejudice against Islaam and Muslims (c) And when losing and/or not succeeding, then hiding behind Qur'aanic injunction 6.68" (Waheed's words)

So, should Ehteshaam continue to view Nadir as a legitimate paladin, we've just witnessed the birth of another benighted blockhead. We should probably be grateful; these men do more to destroy Islam than most Christians give them credit for.

Nadir lives in a cukoo's nest that would best be flown over. From a great distance.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

dear ehteshaam gulam: i listened to this debate fully last night, and though i took copious notes, i will be brief here in my attempts to offer some insight, observations, and hopefully a suggestion or two to help you become a better public speaker. always, always, always, KNOW your audience. it is important that you understand to whom it is you are speaking. i would pretty much guarantee, and i was not there, that your audience of Christians were only turned off by your bald assertions and claims of divine knowledge springing from the koran regarding the death of our Lord.

you have an excellent speaking voice. when you learn your material, and begin to own it (iow, when the material is a part of your knowledge base), you will be more comfortable. you will relax, and begin to speak with certainty. right now you sound like an "ummmm" machine. ummmm'ing is a good way to induce disinterest in your audience. even if you overcame your audience's waning attention with DATA=FACTS=INFO, which you did not, the lasting impression is that you really don't know your material.

you continually made unqualified statements regarding dr. wood's authorities agreeing with you, having "tons of good evidence" for Jesus only appearing to die, that there is no way we could know what paul wrote, etc., yet you never substantiated your statements. so, you offer an assertion of fact, or a truth claim, yet you never offer any data, facts, information to substantiate your claims, so essentially what i got as the listener was that your beliefs are based upon bald assertions and unsubstantiated truth claims. you must marry your truth claims to the data=facts=info which you provide. data=facts=info must follow the assertions.

transitional statements are key to give your presentation continuity. your presentation was sorely disjointed, lacking any cohesive chain of thought. at times your presentation became basically incoherent for the listening audience. i had the luxury of "rewind" to listen to the debate, and could back up and listen again to your statements if they were not clear. your second rebuttal, your conclusion, and your responses to audience questions were for the most part totally incoherent, and hardly addressed the issues.

i've never had formal debate training, but i love public speaking. engage your audience. look at them, smile, take them in and make them welcomed into you, and they will be more receptive to you.

finally, to take biblical verses and eisegete them to fit your world-view is not ever gonna' work on a Christian. we have the Holy Spirit of the One True and Living G_d, we know what the Word says, and we know that what you offer is bogus. so unless you can handle the Word of G_d with respect, you should only try that with your mohammed-following friends. one thing all you mohammedans do is assume that you can re-interpret the bible to fit your failed belief set, and turn two thousand years of biblical study into your little clay pigeon,,, and it ain't gonna' fly.

may you fail miserably as an apologist for mohammed. but may the love and light of G_d shine into your soul, illumine your mind, and change your heart. may you come to know the peace of G_d, which passes all understanding, and come to know Jesus Christ as the One Wo loved you so much that He willingly died for your sins. Peace, in His love, joe

Fernando said...

Ibn saide: «That's not what Taqiyaah means»... ok, ok, we know whatt you think about this subjecte... butt when we all asked muslims to explain to us all what taqiyaa was --and I wrote directlie about you -- no one wanted to explain us... butt, mie frien Ibn, your opinion does not makke the truth when every other evidences sais otherwise... but gere you habe, ounce again, a chance to explain to uss all whatte taqyiia is...

I'll do a copy-and-past off one off mie postes in that thread to make itt easier for you:

«I had a quite longue debatte with Ibn (iff I can remenber it whell) on the meaning of taqiyya...

the problemm itt seamed, was on the interpretation off "in case of danger"... does this mean:

a) danger off lossing one's life?;
b) danger off lossing one's reputtation?
c) danger for islam's reputtation?
d) danger mouse? (to be in sinthony with Khayyam's power off argumentattion...)

so: inn whatt do we stand? perhaps some mislim reader can educate us all based on solidd documentes...
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/03/taqiyya-does-islam-promote-deception.html

David Wood said...

(1) According to Islam, it is permissible to deceive one's enemies due to war.

(2) According to Islam, verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war.

(3) Thus, Muslims are free to deceive people who verbally criticize Islam.

Ibn said...

Wood:(1) According to Islam, it is permissible to deceive one's enemies due to war.(2) According to Islam, verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war.(3) Thus, Muslims are free to deceive people who verbally criticize Islam.

Lol!

That's like saying (1) Drinking water is good for your health (2) Urine is a kind of water (3) Thus, drinking urine is good for your health.

For a philosopher Wood, you sure are daft.

David Wood said...

Ibn,

Urine isn't a kind of water (I would have assumed that you would know this). Find a better example and get back to me.

BTW, it seems you think it's not good to drink urine. So would you say that Muhammad was wrong to encourage his followers to drink camel's urine?

Ibn said...

Urine is a kind of water, Wood. Excreted water, to be specific. But that's beside the point. Your argument committed the fallacy of undistributed middle, and so fails.

As for the hadith about Muhammad(saw) recommending herbivore urine, this is a red herring which no doubt you have introduced in order to take attention away from your fallacious argument.

Try again.

Fernando said...

Ibn... I saw youre lastt post... I hbe to recognise that your analogie with professor Wood's (good) explanation about what is taqqiya is almostt perfect... but in his number 2), Professor Wood said «according to (...)»... you missed that point... please: according to whome is urini a kind of water? Or are you saying that «verbal attacks against Islam AIN'T a kind of war»?

ben malik said...

Ibn's comments are further proof that this guy never used his brain to become a Muslim. It shows that he hasn't studied Islam without kind of depth since Wood is right concerning Islam's view of verbal attacks. Here it goes:

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, - fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. S. 9:12 Abdullah Yusuf Ali

But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). Hilali & Khan

Let me add some old time tafsir for good measure,

But if they break, [if] they violate, their oaths, their covenants, after [making] their pact and assail your religion, slander it, then fight the leaders of unbelief, its heads (here an overt noun [‘the leaders of unbelief’] has replaced the [third person] pronominalisation) — verily they have no [binding] oaths, [no] pacts (a variant reading [for aymān, ‘oaths’] has the kasra inflection [for the alif, sc. īmān, ‘[no] faith’]) — so that they might desist, from unbelief. Al-Jalalayn (http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=12&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

(And if they) the people of Mecca (break their pledges) which are between you and them (after their treaty (has been made with you) and assail your religion) and defame the Religion of Islam, (then fight the heads of disbelief) fight the leaders of disbelief: Abu Sufyan and his host. (Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist) from breaking their pledges. Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbas(http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=12&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2)

So Ibn, did you make sure to leave a plate of animal dung and bones for satan this morning after you flushed him out of your nose? Sure hope so, since you don't want to get him upset at you. Jut look at what he did to Mo when he squeezed the life out of him in the cave and then bewitched him to think that he was having sex with his nine brides!

David Wood said...

Ha! Ha!

A young Muslim trying to school a philosopher in logic!

Urine isn't a kind of water, Ibn. It contains water, but so does milk. Is milk a kind of water? Is lemonade a kind of water? Is coke a kind of water? No. These drinks contain water, but they are not water. Similarly, urine contains water, but it isn't water.

Now consider the most basic syllogism:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
(3) Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Here premise one makes a claim about all men, namely, that every member of the set "men" has the property of being mortal. Premise two makes the claim that Socrates is a member of the set "men." The conclusion is that Socrates is mortal, since he is a member of the set "men," and since all members of the set "men" are mortal.

Now turn to the following argument:

(1) It is permissible to deceive people in a war (according to Islam).
(2) Verbal disputes are a kind of war (according to Islam).
(3) Therefore, it is permissible to deceive people in verbal disputes.

There's no fallacy here, Ibn. The only way you could show that this argument is flawed is to show (a) that deceit is not permissible in times of war, or (b) that verbal disputes are not a kind of war, or (c) that when Muhammad taught that deceit is permissible in war, he was only referring to physical wars. I would suggest going with (c), but I see no way to show this.

Fernando said...

Ibn???

Please: don't get annoied with the truthe... just explain us all whie we are wrong...

Ibn???

Ibn said...

Wood:A young Muslim trying to school a philosopher in logic!

Its a shame, isn't it? Being a philosopher in logic, you don't know how to argue logically.

Wood:Urine isn't a kind of water, Ibn. It contains water, but so does milk. Is milk a kind of water? Is lemonade a kind of water? Is coke a kind of water? No. These drinks contain water, but they are not water. Similarly, urine contains water, but it isn't water.

Using your logic, then, verbal attacks against Islam isn't the same as fighting Muslims on the battlefield with swords, horses or modern weapons like tanks, guns, etc. Thus, your argument still fails.

Wood:Now turn to the following argument:(1) It is permissible to deceive people in a war (according to Islam).(2) Verbal disputes are a kind of war (according to Islam).
(3) Therefore, it is permissible to deceive people in verbal disputes.
There's no fallacy here, Ibn

There IS a fallacy because you are presumptuously and fallaciously equating physical war with verbal attacks. Here's how your argument ACTUALLY goes:

Physically attacking Muslims is war

Verbally attacking Muslims is war

Therefore, Physically attacking Muslims is the same as verbally attacking Muslims (fallacy of the undistributed middle)

Therefore, whatever applies to physically attacking Muslims also applies to verbally attacking Muslims. Taqiyyah applies to physically attacking Muslims; hence, Taqiyyah applies to verbally attacking Muslims as well.

Malik:So Ibn, did you make sure to leave a plate of animal dung and bones for satan this morning after you flushed him out of your nose?

Yes I did. But he didn't finish everything on his plate. He took some for his friend name Ben Malik.

Ibn said...

As for Fernando, how many times have I quoted Gordon D Newby regarding Taqiyyah?

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Using your logic, then, verbal attacks against Islam isn't the same as fighting Muslims on the battlefield with swords, horses or modern weapons like tanks, guns, etc. Thus, your argument still fails."

Here you've simply missed the point. According to Islam, there are two kinds of war--physical war and verbal war. Both count as war. Verbally criticizing Muhammad is even just cause for physically attacking and assassinating non-Muslims.

Now when Muhammad said that deceit is justified in war, did he say, "But right now I'm only referring to physical war on the battlefield"? Not at all.

So what do we have here? Physical war is a subset of the category "war," and verbal war is a subset of the category "war." Muhammad said that deceit is allowed in war.

Think of it this way. Suppose Muhammad had said:

(1) There are two kinds of animals--vertebrates and invertebrates.
(2) It's lawful to kill animals.

It would be a reasonable to conclude that Muhammad's ruling applies to both vertebrates and invertebrates, wouldn't it?

So I'm not equating physical fighting with verbal fighting. I'm simply pointing to the fact that, in Islam, both count as war. And Muhammad said that deceit is lawful in war.

But since you disagree, would you say that Nadir is wrong when he attempts to deceive his debate opponents? I've caught Nadir lying to me on several occasions, and I know he has lied to others as well. Are you condemning Nadir's behavior?

ben malik said...

Wood, it is clear that Ibn can't refute you and is trying to obfuscate. I guess quoting quran 9:12 wasn't good enough to prove that Mo didn't differentiate between physical and verbal attacks. Just ask Asma bint Marwan, Kab ibn Ashraf who was assaninated through the us of lies and deceit, the slave girl whose master stabbed her to death, and the female singers that Mo asked to be killed after he took over Mecca and the pagan house called the Kaba.

You would think that Ibn would use his brain and see that 9:12 is sandwiched between passages inciting Muslims to kill the pagans. The burden is now on Ibn to show that lying and deceit are only to be used in the context of physical wars, not verbal ones, seeing that this text from the Quran doesn't differentiate between physical and verbal "assaults" (I put that word in quotes since the disbelievers didn't assault Mo, it was the other way around).

See Ibn what happened when you didn't let satan finish his plate of food this morning? He effected your ability to reason logically!

Ibn said...

Wood:Here you've simply missed the point. According to Islam, there are two kinds of war--physical war and verbal war. Both count as war. Verbally criticizing Muhammad is even just cause for physically attacking and assassinating non-Muslims.

This is false in so many ways. Consider the statement about verbally criticizing Muhammad(saw). This is not a sufficient reason for issuing a death sentence to an insulter. Do you want me to quote traditions in which, although openly criticized in the presence of his companions who then asked permission for beheading his detractor, the prophet forbade the latter from harming him?

Wood:Now when Muhammad said that deceit is justified in war, did he say, "But right now I'm only referring to physical war on the battlefield"? Not at all.

This is question begging. Another fallacy.

Wood:So what do we have here?

So far, we have 3 fallacies from you.

Wood:But since you disagree, would you say that Nadir is wrong when he attempts to deceive his debate opponents? I've caught Nadir lying to me on several occasions, and I know he has lied to others as well. Are you condemning Nadir's behavior?

This is also a red herring. Again, to answer your previous question, "So what do we have here"-we have 4 fallacies from you-one undistributed middle, one question begging, and two red herrings.

Fernando said...

Ibn saide: «how many times have I quoted Gordon D Newby regarding Taqiyyah?»... almost as I have quoted Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei...

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/12/denial-ad-absurdum-when-muslims.html

here's the point again: and I can also quote the famous Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei's "Asfār al-'arba'eh" who sai, and I quote, translatting from its frensh translation (p.365): «it's the duty to all muslim the practice os dissimulation one's inttention when and wherever that can bring an bennefit to the Ummah»...

oh... I see... this is not a true muslim to you... he is a shiia... and you are a sunni... never the less you both are muslimes... or do you not?

but even quoting you, Ibn, quoting Newby, one can reed: «using dissimulation to preserve oneself in a time of danger or persecution»...

and here, again, I'll poste mie questiones again:

the problemm itt seamed, was on the interpretation off "in case of danger"... does this mean:

a) danger off lossing one's life?;
b) danger off lossing one's reputtation?
c) danger for islam's reputtation?
d) danger mouse? (to be in sinthony with Khayyam's power off argumentattion...)
so, Ibn... in your words: what's taqqyia?

The Fat Man said...

Here is the thing I find facinating about the new wave of muslim apologists. For the most part they are western raised and educated. They have never lived under a trully islamic regieme. If they have its only been to visit family and freinds etc...

They disagree with the early traditions of islam and islams scholars. They seem to be painting a different version of islam then those that are fighting to estabish islam in all the fun places around the world. They have this idea that islam is this peacefull tolerent utopia of idea's. Or thats what their trying to promote.

So my question to the muslim appologist. Why are you so intent on selling this Islam 2.0 to non muslims? Why arent you trying to debate those and convince those that still practice Islam 1.0?

Ibn said...

Since Ben Malik is desperate for attention, I'll entertain his arguments (if such nonsense can be called arguments).

Malik:I guess quoting quran 9:12 wasn't good enough to prove that Mo didn't differentiate between physical and verbal attacks....You would think that Ibn would use his brain and see that 9:12 is sandwiched between passages inciting Muslims to kill the pagans.

Tell me, do you take this verse literally?

Ben Malik:See Ibn what happened when you didn't let satan finish his plate of food this morning? He effected your ability to reason logically!

Its your fault since, despite being full of dung yourself, you had to make him bring you the plate of crap I prepared for him.

ben malik said...

Hey Ibn, let me assist Dave in proving his case by showing that you are being a good Muslim since you are lying to us. I invite everyone to read the following sections from a renowned Muslim jurist who says that anyone who disparages Muhammad must be killed. He then addresses the hadiths that Ibn mentioned in passing where Mo didn't kill certain people who insulted him:

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec3.htm

Hey Ibn, you see what happens when you don't feed satan his daily dose of dung after you flush him out of your nostrils? He ends up throwing it right back in your face! Serves you well for not treating him with respect after all he did for your prophet.

Fernando said...

Mie friend Ibn... this is getting painfull to watch...

ok, your prophet Muhammad believed that muslimes shoulde habe some unbelieveble believes abbout Satan, butt that's not the point here... you just habe to tell us what's taqqyia and if you goo with Gordon Newby's definition (strange you're not quoting a muslim breed person... something about whate mie friend The Fat Man saide about islam 1.0 and islam 2.o?) do, please, explain us all whate he means whith "in time of danger"...

truste us all: a clear and consubstantiated word from you and we'll all turn our attention to help mister Ehteshaam becomming a bitter apologist...

The Fat Man said...

From the site the Ben Posted

"This is also my position regarding the judgment of anyone who belittles him or insults him about having been a shepherd, oversight, forgetfulness, sorcery, any wound he received, the defeat of one of his armies, injury by an enemy, the intensity of his illness or his being attracted to his wives. The judgement of all this is that the one who intends to disparage him by it is killed. The position of the 'ulama' is as we have already stated and it will be proved by what follows. "

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Man - Ibn's good at playing a game of time attrition...

David Wood said...

Ibn, please take a little advice (since this post is about advice to young apologists). Don't toss around fallacy terms when you don't know how to use them properly. I'm sure your Muslim friends are impressed that you know of such terms, but to anyone who knows what they mean, you're obviously just spouting nonsense to make it sound like you know what you're talking about (which you don't). Let's examine the "fallacies" you refer to.

You say that I'm begging the question when I say that Islam considers verbal attacks to be a kind of war. Since this is the Muslim position, the only thing I'm guilty of is stating a fact. Stating a fact isn't a fallacy, Ibn. If you're ignorant of that fact, it doesn't make my claim fallacious. It just makes you ignorant of what Islam teaches.

You say I committed the fallacy of undistributed middle. Again, please learn how to use these terms before you go around pretending to understand them.

For those who, like Ibn, don't know what this fallacy means, here's an argument:

(1) All dogs are mammals.
(2) Fido is a mammal.
(3) Therefore, Fido is a dog.

This is fallacious because Fido may be a cat, a cow, or some other non-canine mammal.

Now let's examine the argument I've been offering (put into a more strict logical form):

(1) All wars are such that deceit is permissible in them.
(2) Verbal disputes with Muslims are a kind of war.
(3) Therefore, deceit is permissible in verbal disputes.

This is about a million miles away from the fallacy of undistributed middle. To commit this fallacy, I would have needed to argue as follows:

(1) All wars are such that deceit is permissible in them.
(2) Verbal disputes are such that deceit is permissible in them.
(3) Therefore, verbal disputes are a kind of war.

Now, is that even close to what I argued? No. My conclusion wasn't that verbal disputes are a kind of war. That's a premise of the argument, based on the claims of Islam. So we see that Ibn, once again, has absolutely no clue what he's talking about.

What about the red herrings? A red herring occurs when someone tries to divert attention away from the argument at hand by bringing up an irrelevant issue.

Ibn, this is the comments section of a blog. I'm free to ask you questions if I want to. If we're discussing an argument, and I ask you your view of Nadir's actions, or your view of drinking urine, this has nothing to do with a fallacy. It's a request for further information. I can't believe you're so desperate to sound smart that you would insist that no one ever ask any questions, introduce any additional topics, etc., in the comments section of a blog. Here's what such a ridiculous requirement would lead to:

MUSLIM: "The Qur'an is a scientific miracle! It says that the sun goes around the earth! My grandmother told me that the sun does indeed go around the earth!"

CHRISTIAN: "Your grandmother told you that the sun goes around the earth? Do you believe that?"

MUSLIM: "Ha! Asking me questions about my grandmother! Red herring! Focus on the argument! My pet cat says I must focus on the argument!"

CHRISTIAN: "So your cat talks to you?"

MUSLIM: "See! You're trying to draw attention away from the argument again! Man, my cat was right."

To put the matter differently, your views about Nadir and drinking camel urine are relevant to our discussion, and apart from your juvenile misunderstanding of elementary logic, there's no reason not to ask you about your views.

David Wood said...

Ibn,

Since it's wrong to kill people for insulting Muhammad, would you say that Muhammad was a horrible sinner for allowing Muslims to kill people for insulting him?

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

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

Nakdimon said...

David, the hadiths from Sunnan Abu Dawud that you quoted... dont you know that those are weak hadiths? Totally fabricated!

(Ibn thinks: "There! Got rid of that refutation of my argument. Works all the time! Because I used my brain to embrace Islam.")

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn,

How many times are you gona bite the dust?

I have to say that I admire you for trying to present islam, most muslims have escaped this blog.

But I have to say that everytime you try to present islam you fail miserably.

Semper Paratus said...

Ibn tried to play the same game in our discussion on the Trinity. He would rattle off one fallacy or another (often while committing said fallacy) and wouldn't except correction. Eventually it got too hot for him...so he tucked tail and ran.

P.S. Ibn, PM says "Hi".

Ari said...

Great advice. I think the worst thing about it is that it is actually true.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Does anyone here actually know who Ibn is? Is he active on the pal-talk or any other forums? Does he have a website? Has he done any formal debating?

So far what I have figured out is:

1. He has experience in Muslim-Christian apologetics.

2. He uses excellent vocabulary in English, which means he is educated and English speaking.

3. He can be quite abusive and rude.

4. I have a feeling that he might have been present at the debate between David, Adnan and Yahya. The reason why I say that is that he has referred to details from that debate; and I was there, I know.

5. Also he is certainly very interested in those debates.

6. When he came on the this blog the first time, he appeared to be a Shia Muslim. Then suddenly he stopped using shia sources (correct me if I am wrong here).

7. He states that foundational for his belief and approach to religion is the brain and reason God has given him.
This could indicate more secular studies on religion, and someone who adapts such terminology in defence of islam.

Ibn said...

Sorry for the late response ladies! I was busy preparing for exams.

Let's start with Wood.

Wood:You say that I'm begging the question when I say that Islam considers verbal attacks to be a kind of war.

No, I said you begged the question when you insisted that when Muhammad(saw) said deceit is permissible in war, he meant both verbal and physical war. For your information, there is no such thing as a verbal war, "Harbul Lisan" in Arabic, in either the Quran or Sunnah. In fact, the Quran says to depart from the company of people who ridicule ayahs, not attack them. It also says to leave people who take religion for play and amusement. I know, you are going to bring up Surah 9:12 to refute this, but at least read the verse carefully before you decide to make a fool of yourself.

Wood:Now let's examine the argument I've been offering (put into a more strict logical form):(1) All wars are such that deceit is permissible in them.(2) Verbal disputes with Muslims are a kind of war.(3) Therefore, deceit is permissible in verbal disputes.

The logical structure of this argument is different from the original one. Although no longer fallacious, the second premise is wrong as a result of which so is the argument.

Wood:This is about a million miles away from the fallacy of undistributed middle. To commit this fallacy, I would have needed to argue as follows:(1) All wars are such that deceit is permissible in them.
(2) Verbal disputes are such that deceit is permissible in them.
(3) Therefore, verbal disputes are a kind of war.Now, is that even close to what I argued? No. My conclusion wasn't that verbal disputes are a kind of war.


Actually, your previous argument was:

(1) According to Islam, it is permissible to deceive one's enemies due to war.

(2) According to Islam, verbal attacks against Islam are a kind of war.

(3) Thus, Muslims are free to deceive people who verbally criticize Islam.

In other words:

(1) All deceit is permissible in war
(2) Verbal attacks are war
(3) Therefore, all deceit is permissible in verbal attacks.

"War" was the undistributed middle term.

Wood:What about the red herrings? A red herring occurs when someone tries to divert attention away from the argument at hand by bringing up an irrelevant issue. Ibn, this is the comments section of a blog. I'm free to ask you questions if I want to.

Funny, you admit you've committed a red herring, haughtily saying "I'm free to ask you questions if I want to", and then go on to introduce more red herrings in the form a fictional dialog between a Muslim and Christian on the scientific miracles in the Quran. Lol!

Wood:Ibn, Since it's wrong to kill people for insulting Muhammad, would you say that Muhammad was a horrible sinner for allowing Muslims to kill people for insulting him?

See this is what I was talking about. We go from discussing the legitimacy of Taqiyyah in verbal disputes to whether or not Muhammad was a sinner for allowing Muslims to kill people for insulting him. You couldn't have come up with a better red herring!

I'll deal with Fernando and Satan's girlfriend, Ben Malik, after I'm done with my exams, Insha'Allah. Expect a post on 27th.

David Wood said...

Ibn,

I think you're deliberately trying to waste our time here. Let's look at your claims.

You say that verbal disputes about Islam and Muhammad aren't a kind of war. You tell us to read 9:12 more carefully. Do you think that Ibn Kathir read the verse carefully? Because he agrees with us, not you. He says that attacking the religion refers to "disapproval and criticism," and that "it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought."

So, at best you can say, "Well, I disagree with Muslim scholars and commentators, and I choose to interpret Islam differently." You're certainly free to do that. But I wasn't making a claim about your particular views. I was making a claim about Islam, and people like Ibn Kathir certainly know more about Islam than you. Or do you think that you've surpassed your greatest scholars?

You say that the logical structure of my argument has changed. No, it hasn't. I simply reworded it to bring out the logical structure more clearly, since you completely misinterpreted the original argument (which was offered as an outline of my reasoning, not as a formal syllogism).

Now here's the argument you attribute to me:

(1) All deceit is permissible in war
(2) Verbal attacks are war
(3) Therefore, all deceit is permissible in verbal attacks.

Look at how you've mangled premise (1)! "All deceit" is permissible!!! Well, at least I see why you you falsely accused me of committing a fallacy. The problem isn't that you don't understand arguments; it's that you don't understand how a statement may be formulated in various ways. Did you really think I was saying something about "all deceit"--i.e. all kinds of deception??? So, according to you, I said that trying to deceive God would be permissible in war?

Ibn, I don't know why, but you're so desperate to attack me that you make no sense. When I say, "According to Islam, deceit is permissible in war," I'm saying something about all wars, not about all deceit. The question would be open as to what type of deceit is permissible in wars, but I said nothing about "all deceit." But your misunderstanding of my basic statement does explain why you failed to understand my argument.

You say again that I've committed red herrings, and then you say that the example I offered to explain what I mean is also a red herring.

Ibn, logical terms have meanings. They're supposed to be applied with care, not tossed around at random in order to sound smart. By throwing them around without understanding them, you make yourself seem desperate. Let me repeat: Asking for further information is not a red herring. Giving examples to explain one's meaning is not a red herring. I would only be guilty of a red herring if the purpose of asking for further information were to avoid the argument. When did I avoid the argument at all? Never! Now stop your war against logic. (I have to say, though, that I think you've stumbled upon a new fallacy. We can call it the "fallacy of misplaced fallacies." This fallacy occurs when someone is desperate to sound like he knows what he's talking about, so he runs around claiming that others have committed fallacies, when they haven't.)

You say that I committed another red herring by pointing out that Muhammad allowed his followers to murder people for criticizing him. But was this brought up as a red herring?

I brought this up as evidence that Muslims view verbal criticism as a kind of assault or battle against Muhammad. This is why they believe that it's lawful to murder people for criticising Muhammad. Is this irrelevant? No, it's completely relevant. Then you said that Islam doesn't teach this. I refuted your false claim and showed that Islam does indeed teach that people who criticize Muhammad should be killed. Then, when you've been refuted, you once again bring up a fallacy, as if this is going to fool anyone!

Ibn, something is only a red herring when it's irrelevant. Muslims killing people for verbal criticism is not irrelevant in a discussion about whether verbal disputes qualify as a kind of war.

Fernando said...

Ibn???

Ibn???

Ibn???

ben malik said...

We see Ibn's true love shine through. Satan's girlfriend? Well, let's see. Muhammad was born to a pagan woman whom he himself said was now burning in hell. According to early Islamic works, Muhammad's foster mother Halima told his mother Amina that she tought the child was possessed. Later in life Muhammad was visited by a spirit who tortured him which led him to think that he was going out of his mind and possessed by a jinn.

Muhammad exhibited all the immoral qualities of a man who was heavily demonized.

In light of these facts, I think Satan's girlfirend must have been Muhammad's mother since she gave birth to his firstborn child.

Ibn said...

I'm back ladies! But I very little time on my hands so I'll make this post as brief as possible.

Regarding 9:12, Wood appeals to Ibn Kathir because according to him, Ibn Kathir represents Islam whereas I don't. This is a no true scotsman fallacy.

I asked Wood to read 9:12 in context which he obviously has not done. Does 9:12 say verbal attacks on Islam constitute war? No. Does 9:12 say criticism of Islam constitutes sufficient reason for war? No. As the subsequent verse makes it clear, "Would you, perchance, fail to fight against people who have broken their solemn pledges, and have done all that they could to drive the Apostle away,'° and have been first to attack you? Do you hold them in awe? Nay, it is God alone of whom you ought to stand in awe,' if you are [truly] believers!"

With respect to my presentation of Wood's fallacious argument, he quibbles over petty details, arguing that he disagrees with the first premise to the extent that it permits extreme forms of lying, such as the ones against God. My point wasn't about the types of permissible lying, so Wood basically attacked a straw man.

Next, Wood again brings up the issue of Muhammad not doing anything about some of his followers who killed people for slandering (not the same as criticism) him. According to Wood, this proves criticism of Muhammad, or Islam for that matter constitutes, war. How? And where does Taqqiyaah fit into these incidents? As long as Wood is unable to establish the necessary links, his appeal to these incidents continues to be a red herring.

In summary, Wood claims verbal criticisms of Islam constitute a kind of war. Therefore, Taqiyyah applies to it. The foundation of his argument has so far been constructed with numerous fallacious arguments, all of which have crumbled before my superior intuitive prowess. I argued that there is no evidence, either logical or scriptural, for the claim that (1) verbal attacks on Islam are a kind of war that (2) permits the use of Taqiyyah as a strategy for victory. In support of my claims, I have appealed to situations in which the Prophet allowed his detractors to live which proves mere criticism is not sufficient grounds for death, and Quranic verses which show the best treatment to be meted out to slanderers is to depart separate from them.

Now for Fernando. In response to your question, the answer is when one's life is at stake.

As for Malik

"In light of these facts, I think Satan's girlfirend must have been Muhammad's mother since she gave birth to his firstborn child."

Considering that your are filled to the brim with dung, and Satan is attracted to such filth, he obviously loves you more.

Sepher Shalom said...

Ibn: "Sorry for the late response ladies! I was busy preparing for exams."

Oh good grief! I really hope Ibn is a teenager, that is about the only excuse for his behavior.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways. (1 Cor. 13:11)

Fernando said...

Ibn... glade to see you back!!! Butt whate do you mean with «my superior intuitive prowess»?...

and what do you say to:

Abu Abdullah (Ja'far as-Sadiq)who says that "Nine tenths of religion is Taqiyyah, hence one who does not dissimulate has no religion." (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.110); and that "He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public has destroyed it." and that "A believer who does not dissimulate is like a body without a head." (Tafseer al-Askari); and that "Mix with the non-Shi'a externally but oppose them internally" (Al-Kafi vol.9 p.116)...

It looks that for this renowned schoolar Taqiyyah is far more important in islam thann a simple instrumente to defend one's life... would you nott agreee?

ben malik said...

Wow, so Ibn does believe in Mo's fairytales! Notice folks that he never contests any of the comic strips which I brought from his Islamic fairytale books.

So Ibn you think that non-physical beings eat dung and bones? You also believe that these beings have genitals so that someone like satan can literally piss in your ears? And you actually believe that water literally flushes out satan out of your nostrils? So you believe that satan literally stays in your nose and so that he is literally that small?

Well, if all you need is water to combat satan then why does Allah waste his time and use shooting stars and meteors to hurl at him? Wouldn't that be overkill?

Yeah, you really used your brain alright. hehehe

I will let Wood show you why you don't know a thing about logic. It has been clear to us both here and in Semper's blog that you don't have a clue concerning the correct application of logical reasoning which explains why you keep embarrassing yourself by your misapplication of logical fallacies. It is clear that you are pretending to be a logician, much like Mo pretended to be a prophet.

Semper Paratus said...

Ben,

I think Ibn has called you guys ladies in order to justify in his own mind trying to put the smack-down on you like Muhammad did to Aisha.

But he doesn't really need to go to that length; after all, the "angels" seemed to take special pleasure in slapping Muhammad (and I presume Ibn doesn't think he was a lady), as for example on the occasion when Muhammad took his "shirt" off while playing with his pagan companions. (This is only one of the special privileges of prophethood, as it is also only one of the ways the "angels" showed their peculiar interest in him. Before the aforementioned happend, a couple of "angels" split him open and stirred up his insides, and later on one who masqueraded as Gabriel choked him...Muhammad was obviously of special interest to a world of "angels" that could just as easily double as UFC fighters, pimps and back alley surgeons as they could impersonate angels of God.)

Unfortunately for Ibn, the "angels" had considerably more power over Muhammad, as Muhammad did over Aisha, then Ibn has over anyone, including ladies.

SophieB said...

This conversation is hilarious!! Just when I thought Ibn had given up and seen his error, he bounced right back with a brand new fallacy - the 'no true scotsman'!! I haven't got to the end of the conversation yet but it's surely he only a matter of time before he incorrectly brings out the old 'tu quoque'!

There must be some kind of website he's going to, maybe fallacies-to-throw-around-to-sound-clever dot com, that gives you the name of a fallacy and a brief description of it. I have no clue about logic, philosophy, fallacies, but Ibn's mistakes are as clear as day to anyone who is more interested in reasoning than fancy terminology.

This is an old post; I do hope he has grown out of this.

SophieB said...

Heh heh, now 'Straw man'!! Sweet mercy, this is great stuff :-)

SophieB said...

Debates with Ibn should be staged as drinking games - every time Ibn incorrectly cries 'fallacy!', the audience gets to take a drink. That way he'd be the most popular debater out there. It'd certainly encourage the attendance of the non-religious.