Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Shadid Lewis vs. David Wood: "Peace and Violence in Christianity and Islam"

Here it is!

NOTE: In between Shadid's first rebuttal and David's first rebuttal, a Muslim professor stood up and asked to speak because he had to leave. He then provided some extensive commentary. This will explain David's response in his first rebuttal.


Opening Statements



Rebuttals and Conclusions

151 comments:

Fernando said...

Help!!!! I juste could nott listten to anithing!!!

Nakdimon said...

Man I cant stand when Muslims twist their own sources to make it say what it doesnt.

Shadeed talked about the Meccans attacked the Muslims and broke the treaty. Where might we find this? What source please?

Also Shadeed said that Surah 9:5 and other Surahs is in context of war. How do you determine the context of a verse? There is no context in the Quran, that book has no chronology whatsoever. The stories in there are all heaped up on one pile. In order for you to have context you need chronology.

I would like Christian apologists to challenge Muslims on these points when they make these claims. The only chronological accounts of Muhammads life are the Sirahs. The Hadiths also have no chronology.

And did I hear him talking about the Sirah of the prophet? What Sirah may that be? Ibn Ishaq? Ibn Sa'd?

Yahya Snow said...

These peace/violence 'debates' are silly as all religions teach peace and no religion that I have studied is inherently violent.

Bigots like to hatemonger and portray certain religions as violent when the teachings of any reliigon must be contextualized and comprehended before disparaging any religion..

I stand (sit:)) here stating quite confidently that no religion is violent (none that I have looked into ie Islam, Judaism, Christianity, sikhism etc)

Religion repels violence

Rafa-el_1 said...

just to add to the point of david regarding the opression used to covert 'the people of the book'


Al Bukhari (4557)
"You are the best (i.e., the most beneficial) of people for mankind, you bring them in the chains that are around their necks until they enter Islam."

Sepher Shalom said...

In my opinion Shadeed lost very badly in this debate.

I really wish the comments from the audience member had made it into the video. That would have been interesting to see. I guess the guy might have thought Shadeed needed some help? And he brought up Hitler? Come on. Really.

Hitler--> "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness....”(A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

It seems Hitler may have preferred Islam for his Fascist regime, but obviously Christianity was too peaceful for his liking.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Yahya Snow - did you even watch the debate?

Fernando said...

Yahya Snow said: «no religion that I have studied is inherently violent»... Yajya... I reallie thought you were a muslime... and a muslime thate studied his own relligion... a religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window...

God bless you...

MrIslamAnswersback said...

To Nakdimon,

The Quran it self says the Quraish broke the treaty and attacked the Muslims 1st, thats where I got it. Quran 9:1-13. And yes there is a context in the Quran again read 9:1-13 they are all about the subject matter of the Quraish breaking they treaty that was made at the sacred mosque. So its clear you just dont know what your talking about.

Yahya Snow said...

For Fernando and Nabeel..

I did not watch the whole debate, I have viewed threads/articles and debates ocncerning this matter of violence/peace and I have noticed it requires dishonesty, an insincere nature or complete ignorance on the part of the accuser to even claim that a religion (in this case, Christianity or Islam) is inherently violent.

Please do not miscontrue the comment and believe I am slighting the speakers but I am just relaying my own experiences when topics of this nature come up.

I also find bigots gather around threads of this nature and hurl their venom at each other in a devious mud-slinging contest.

I am a muslim and I urge Muslims to avoid taking violent passages in the Bible out of context in order to fit with their corrupt agendas...I also ask Christians to likewise.


ps...fernando, why do you seem to add an 'e' (and double 'tt') at the end of some of your words...just wondering...is it because you have spacebar problems...my spacebar has been ripped off!!!!! Yikes! :)

Peace

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Sorry rafa-el
but either your lying or you have been mis-informed because Bukhari 4557 does not say any such thing. And the Quran clearly states there is no compelling to religion ( i.e.to islam). And you see this what I cant stand, these attempts at attacking islam with out right lies and mis-information. And I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have been doing this so long that I have seen many of you do it on purpose.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Hey Sepher,

The Audience member who spoke felt debates were a waste of time on both sides. He is one who likes the kumbaya inter-faith talks instead. But right after he spoke, a young lady in the back responding by saying SHE CONVERTED TO ISLAM after my debate with David on "Did Jesus rise from the dead?". All praise be to Allah.

And Hitler clearly chose Christianity as it fit right in line with the idea of White supremacy since The idea of God being a man and depicted as a blonde haired blue eyed man was perfect for the Aryans. This is why German Christians supported the Nazis and hated the Jews. After all They had the bible as support Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 "Those who say they are Jews are'nt really but are of the Temple of Satan". Or 1 thess 2:14,15 The jews killed Jesus and the prophets, they are not pleasing to God, and contrary to all men".

Seems Hitler really did prefer Christianity.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

LOL Fernando, you typical hate filled bigot christian. Here you insult the guy with "you thought he was a Muslime" " An muslime that studied his religion"clearly expressing your bigotry towards muslims, then you have the damn nerve to end with God Bless you????

You can keep to your way, you guys talk all this love everybody nonsense but don't even see the hate and bigotry expressed in your insults. Keep your bigot blessing to your self we dont want them.

KeithTruth said...

MrIslamAnswersback,

I was not impressed with your performance. Great job professor Wood.

Sepher Shalom said...

MrIslam said:"The Quran it self says the Quraish broke the treaty and attacked the Muslims 1st, thats where I got it."

No, it doesn't. The name "Quraish" is not mentioned there anywhere. It simply says "mushrikeen", without identifying who they are. To know that these Ayat are about the Quraish you have to draw from another source.

At-Taubah 9:1-13 does not provide the details you claim it does. If you read it without external sources there are many major holes in the context of what is being spoken of. Your understanding of what is being spoken of is obviously coming from an additional source, either written or verbally transmitted.

I'm curious as to what those sources are?

Sepher Shalom said...

From "Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944", published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold it ." (p 278)

Obviously Hitler was no Christian. The man certainly did not believe in the Jewish Messiah of the Bible.

Shadeed. Seek help. I don't know what grievances you have from your past over the issue of race and racism, but you are obviously in need of some healing. I'm not being sarcastic. I genuinely feel empathy for you.

The Fat Man said...

MrIslamAnswersback said...
"To Nakdimon,
The Quran it self says the Quraish broke the treaty "

A lot of discussion seems to be on this treaty, who broke what when was it broken etc... I'm wondering does anyone have a copy of this treaty. What I mean is I would like to read it and read the history behind the treaty. It is one thing to say that the Meccan broke the treaty, however what exactly did they break in the treaty?

getrealman said...

Mr. Lewis,

I'm a little confused as to why you brought race up and interjected this issue. Do you really think Christianity = white man's religion? It may well be that you do not, but it seems as though that is what you're inferring. If not, please clarify. If so, well... it would be scary to think that someone could have such a distorted view of the real world.

I'm hoping you are approaching your worldview with an informed opinion based on facts and honest assessments, not prejudice and misinformation. I look forward to reading your comments so that I can better ascertain where you are coming from and what it is you really believe.

GRM

David Wood said...

SHADID SAID: Sorry rafa-el but either your lying or you have been mis-informed because Bukhari 4557 does not say any such thing. And the Quran clearly states there is no compelling to religion ( i.e.to islam). And you see this what I cant stand, these attempts at attacking islam with out right lies and mis-information. And I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have been doing this so long that I have seen many of you do it on purpose.

Shadid,

I just pulled out volume six of Sahih al-Bukhari. Number 4557 reads as follows: "Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Verse: 'You [true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad ad his Sunna (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of people ever raised up for mankind . . ." means, the best for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam (thereby save them from the eternal punishment in Hell-fire and make them enter Paradise in the Hereafter)."

Notice, Shadid, that you just called Rafa-el a liar, when his statement was true. He knows more about your sources than you do, and you condemn him based on your own lack of knowledge. You should realize that just because you've never read your early sources doesn't mean that those sources don't exist.

Then you appeal to an abrogated verse as if it overrules Islam's clear calls to violence. Absolutely shocking.

It seems you are quite content reinventing Islam in your own image (i.e. reinterpreting everything to suit your liking). You have the freedom to do so, but please don't condemn those who want to portray Islam more accurately.

Now that I've disagreed with you, I assume you're going to call me a racist bigot. Feel free.

Sepher Shalom said...

Shadeed,

You misquoted Revelation 2:9 & 3:9, 1 Thess 2:14,15. You should not put quotation marks around something that is not actually a direct quote. It is misleading and dishonest when you do.

You give no one any reason to take you seriously when you jump all over Rafa-el for misquoting [even though as we have seen he didn't], while you yourself engage in misquoting. When you paraphrase don't use quote marks Shadeed.

Now, since your misquotation is obviously what you believe those passages are saying, please allow me to demonstrate your error.

Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 are speaking of a specific group of Jews that violate the true tenants of Judaism. Please refer back to Rev 2:1 to see who is being spoken to ["“To the messenger of the church in Smyrna, write:"]. Clearly this has nothing to do with Hitler, Germany, or the Holocaust.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-15- Firstly, who is being spoken to here? Members of the Synagogue at Thessalonica. Yes, that's right. The people being encouraged in these verses are a mixture of Jews and Greek "G-d fearers" that worship the G-d of Israel together. Secondly, what verse 14 clearly says is that people practicing their Jewish faith of Messianism are being persecuted by those who reject Yeshua as Messiah. Verse 15 does not accuse the Jews corporately of deicide. Rather, it identifies that the same certain group spoken of in verse 14 are the same group that set up the mock-trial that convicted Yeshua, the Jew, the Savior of Israel, before he was handed over to the Romans.

Shadeed, all these verses were written BY Jews, FOR Jews, practicing a Jewish Messianic faith. This is all an in-house discussion. I'm sorry you have so little understanding of the facts. The fact that some people did twist the meaning of certain verses to support anti-semitism does not change the fact that it was all written by Jews, and is all about the G-d of Israel, whom Gentiles are now grafted into as equals by the Messiah.

I find it highly offensive that you are co-opting the suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of Hitler to advance your Islamic claims and your personal vendetta over racial exploitation. People didn't burn in ovens so you could accuse the JEWISH authors of the Bible of condoning it.

Shadeed, you make me sick. I am restraining every fiber of my being right now not to express the depth with which you should be rebuked and chastized, and only doing so out of respect for the purpose of this blog. Shame on you.

IslamSINS said...

The Quran it self says the Quraish broke the treaty and attacked the Muslims 1st, thats where I got it. Oh, ...

Bwaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa, and, might I add, "HAH!"

Well, if that pillar of truth and integrity, the Koran, says it, then it must be:
(a) unquestioned by Muslims
(b) another lie of Muhammad
(c) a delusional tale by an imaginary "allah"
(d) all of the above
(hint: "d" is the correct answer)

If I felt it necessary to lie, to mince words, to pervert truth, to "cover" Christ's true message, hoping to sanitize it for world consumption, not only would He NOT be God, but He wouldn't be a messenger for any deity. I would not follow Him.

An inquest is coming, Muslims, from the Authority so lofty, your knees will buckle prior to bowing before the Judge, while you confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Please do it this side of eternity, when it can save your immortal souls from the eternity in hell, to which Muhammad drags you.

Sepher Shalom said...

Shadeed,

Fernando is not a native English speaker. He has many idiosyncrasies in his spelling. I am quite confident that when he misspelled "muslim" as "muslime" it was not malicious. I find it hard to believe that you could not ascertain this by reading the rest of his post. ["Yajya... I reallie thought you were a muslime... and a muslime thate studied his own relligion..."].

I suggest you consider calmness and temperance rather than always seeing "bigotry" everywhere you look and in every person.

The Fat Man said...

I think its clear from MrIslamAnswersback statements that he believes that Adulf Hittler was a christian becasue he was white. His racism really does show. What is that bible verse that says something like They went out from us but they were never of us. MrIslamAnswersback is a prime example of that verse.

Ibn said...

Nakdimoron:Also Shadeed said that Surah 9:5 and other Surahs is in context of war. How do you determine the context of a verse? There is no context in the Quran, that book has no chronology whatsoever. The stories in there are all heaped up on one pile. In order for you to have context you need chronology.

I hear this so many times but not once do the bigots ever demonstrate the truthfulness of their claim. Many scholars, both Muslims and reputable non-Muslims, have shown how the Surahs in the Quran follow a unique logic that connects one verse to the other. For more on this, pick up a copy of Neal Robinson's "Discovering the Quran".

Nakdimoron:I would like Christian apologists to challenge Muslims on these points when they make these claims. The only chronological accounts of Muhammads life are the Sirahs. The Hadiths also have no chronology.

Academically (and by that I mean by way of scholarly journals and books), Christian scholars of Islam, not necessarily apologists of Christianity, and usually nominally faithful, have challenged the authenticity of the Quran, including its structure. Of course, Muslims didn't just sit back and allow their faith to be attacked, knowing how misplaced the allegations are, so they also responded academically to these claims. Issa Boullata of McGill University has a book on the structure of the Quran as does Abdel Hameed of SOAS. There are also many works on Arabic dealing with the pertinent topic. See how limited your knowledge of Islam is?

The only public debates I have seen in which these issues were presented were between Shabir Ally and Jay Smith. Of course, Ally wiped the floor with his opponent, destroying his claims and humiliating him in the process.

SINS:An inquest is coming, Muslims, from the Authority so lofty, your knees will buckle prior to bowing before the Judge, while you confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Alternatively, before I confess Jesus is Lord, the authority you speak of will find himself hanging for dead on a tree once again at the hands of his creation. Then I'll have to wait another 2000 years or more for salvation. Lol!

Nakdimon said...

Shadeed wrote: “To Nakdimon,

The Quran it self says the Quraish broke the treaty and attacked the Muslims 1st, thats where I got it. Quran 9:1-13. And yes there is a context in the Quran again read 9:1-13 they are all about the subject matter of the Quraish breaking they treaty that was made at the sacred mosque. So its clear you just dont know what your talking about.”



That is the entire point Shadeed. Where do we find the Quraish attacking the Muslims? There is no such thing. All the historical reports say is that the Muslims went out to attack their victims repeatedly. This is the problem I have with Islam. It turns things around to acquit itself and accuse others of the exact thing it does itself. Such as in this case, the cause of persecution of Muslims in Mecca and especially with the treaty of Hudaybiya. That treaty was never broken by the Meccans. It was the Muslims that violated the treaty multiple times. In Mecca it wasn’t the Meccans that started the hostilities. It was Muhammad and his followers that did. The Meccans did all they could to try to keep the peace and sought peaceful means to stop the hostilities. Yet Muhammad and the Muslims kept on making trouble. And we also find that in the Qur’an, the twisting of facts so that the accused were said to be guilty of the things that the Muslims were doing. For instance, Surah 2:85 accuses Jews of killing their own people, chasing people out of their homes and taking ransom for captives. They did no such thing! Yet when you look in the Hadith it is the Muslims that did these things. The Muslims were going around wielding swords, killing fellow Arabs (and non-Arabs), chasing people out of their homes, confiscating their wealth and taking people captives to sell them as slaves of take ransom for them before returning them to their people. So I have ample reasons NOT to trust the Qur’an.

What I also found interesting was that in the second video you were claiming that the Qur’an is the best Tafsir, meaning it explains itself best. Yet you later claimed that the scholars that David quoted were invalid because they had nothing to grab hold to in the Qur’an. How then, is it possible that the Qur’an is “the best Tafsir” when they all confirm David’s position and all differ from your position is your position is what the Qur’an is talking about?

David, I didn’t expect anything other from you than the job you did in the debate. Great! I would like to see Christian apologists, whenever Muslims start protesting about the wars in the Tenach, pull out the hadith from Bukhari where Muhammad, yet again, (can’t get his facts straight and) attributes the events of two different prophets to one prophet and endorses the wars of Joshua and Moses and tries to give Allah credit for them. I can imagine the expression on the face of Muslims in the audience. (and on the face of the Muslim apologist himself)

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Ounce again...

«A religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window...»...

Misterislam... Instead off saying these wordes are offensive, falsee or bigootrie, you, mie dear muslimes friends, simplie could juste starte too explainne whie I'm wrong when I sai thate when islam (and itt does...) allows killings and beatings as an intrisic violent nature... are those nott a forme off violence? are these nott intrinsique to islam? youre reaction, Misterislam, onlie expresses an inmature incapacitie to deal with the realitie or the difefrent opionions others habe... I'll refrainne to write it's name here...

Misterislam... thankes for your kind and pacfic wordes... a typical mslime reaction: "do nott talk about you think about mie religion"... aare you trying to silence mie convictions? Please do itt so: show me were I'm wrongue and I'll chane them... are you threating me? Please: do itt so and we'll see, ounce again, the true nature off islam...

Misterislam... Love is not paternalism; love is an exigent realitie: announce and denounce in order to educate in the truthe (nott in lies like you did about qur'an 9:1-13)... do not feel offended juste because we putted a mirror in front off you... whate you see is your own realitie...

Ok, iff you sai it does nott you'll habe two chances: either islam is nott a true religion (because you saide all "true" -- I imagine -- religions are nott intrinsic violent), or those exceptions to the peaceffull nature off islam shoiulde nott habe been present in the qur'an... the difference between the Bible and the qur'an is the specific difference between the notions off revelation and inspiration off bothe books...

so: dear muslimes friends: please express the vionet character off Christianitie and we (from Christian notion off revelation and inspiration) will show you whie it's not; chow us whie islam is nott violentte, and we (from muslim notion off revelation and inspiration) will show whie itt is... do nott make inviable analogies...

Yahya Snow... I'm nott, in anie case, intending to be offensive... I'm nott familiare withe english... woulde you rather I wrote to you in other languege? German? French? Italian? Spanish? Phillipino? I'm glade to do itt so...

God blees Yahya Snow... and I saie this truliie, with all mie loving heart... you felt offended bie mie wordes (which were nott intended to be itt so...), butt were moderedatelie moderate in your wordes...

God blees youu Misterislam... itt seams to me you're realllie neadind His bleesing these daies...

Alfred said...

Sepher saide to MisterIslam: «I genuinely feel empathy for you». I know what you mean... somewhow I feel that many muslim apologistes habe some (not all; just some) deep problems; and the number keeps growing.

What did Fernando said to justify such an outburst from MisterIslam?

Some muslims are, indeed, very sensitive; emotional problems?

MisterIslam? Is that the same as MisterUniverse to the muslim world? Any way: he seems very weak to be a "mister" in any aspect: politeness; physical or mental strenght.

Alfred said...

By the way: MisterIslam... all your wordes are absolutely disgunsting to all off those who love truth...

please: feel free to keep posting around here in order to everyone may see the face of islam.

You have been misled to islam by someone who said to you that Christianity was racist and violent to black people (and don't deny it... we were close friends...), and now you see that's not the case, but you can't leave your false religion. Be a man and leave it!

Nakdimon said...

The Fat Man wrote: “A lot of discussion seems to be on this treaty, who broke what when was it broken etc... I'm wondering does anyone have a copy of this treaty. What I mean is I would like to read it and read the history behind the treaty. It is one thing to say that the Meccan broke the treaty, however what exactly did they break in the treaty?”


Hey bro. The treaty is recorded by Ibn Ishaq and let me tell you this. The Meccans go out of their way NOT to break the treaty. Tabari and Ibn Ishaq report many direct violations of the Muslims to the treaty and NONE of the Meccans. Even after the Muslims repeatedly broke the treaty, the Meccans still didn’t attack them, but tried to reason with them, seeking peaceful means to try to uphold the treaty. The didn’t retaliate even ONCE. You know what they considered “breaking of the treaty” by the Meccans?

The Meccans aided a tribe (Banu Bakr) they had a treaty with, with weapons against a tribe (Banu Khuza'a) that the Muslims had a treaty with. THAT was the “violation”, while the treaty didn’t say anything about tribes that were affiliated with either party. It is even to be questioned if the Meccans were aware of the affiliation of the Kuza’a tribe with the Muslims in the first place. Yet THIS is the reason that the Muslims claim that the treaty was broken by the Meccans. But check this out:

• The Banu Khuza’a attacked the Banu Bakr and robbed them BEFORE the Quraish aided the Banu Bakr.
• The Muslims attacked the Mulawwih, who were confederates of the Banu Bakr BEFORE the Quraish aided the Banu Bakr
• The Muslims kept attacking Quraishi caravans after Hudaybiya BEFORE the Quraish aided the Banu Bakr
• Muhammad didn’t return the men and women that fled from Mecca to Medina, violating the treaty with the Quraish BEFORE the Quraish aided the Banu Bakr
• The Muslims killed Quraishi men multiple times after the treaty and refused to pay blood money, which are each violations of the treaty BEFORE the Quraish aided the Banu Bakr


And we can go on. But all this doesn’t count according to the Muslims. What’s more, Muhammad attacked Mecca IN THE SACRED MONTH OF RAMADAN, when Allah says explicitly that fighting is forbidden. This was at least the second time that Muhammad violated the prohibition of fighting in Ramadan and attacked another tribe. Yet, Muslims claim that the Meccans were the savages and they broke the treaty and that the Muslims were the civilized once. But of course Muslims will claim that Allah was ever accommodating by stepping in to bail Muhammad out and declare that Muhammad was allowed to fight in Ramadan. Too bad that Allah didn’t make this known to Muhammad’s enemies, who had no reason to think that anyone would violate the prohibition of fighting in the month of Ramadan, since, in addition to the prohibition, they had just signed a treaty.

And Allah is all-accommodating, all-providing. Right?

Alforreca said...

MisterIslam: your utter ignorance and desire to hide the truth about your (false) religion is disgusting: DISGUSTING. What a great example about the true nature of islam. Thanks for sharing them with us in order all to see.

Matthew said...

While I can see that many muslims probably feel like they have to defend their religion against charges of being violent, those debates aren't really interesting. You've seen once and you've seen all.

Rafa-el_1 said...

Mrislamanswersback you just lost all credibility with the statements you made in this section.

I confronted you many times on paltalk before ( nasrani_777 / Rafa-el_1) but now your ignorants is clearly documented

Before jumping on somebody calling them liars you have to check the sources they provide you with. Which you clearly didn’t making a fool out of yourself claiming that I misquoted the Hadeeth.

I will repeat my statement I made to you on Paltalk..

We muslims leave islam for Christ cause we know Christ and Islam. You so called Christians leave Christ for Islam cause you are ignorant off both.

Fernando said...

Ibn... sweet great goodness... gladde too see you're ok... welcome back!!! hoope your studies are going weel... and I reallie thought your baptism off Nakdimon as Nakdimoron was foonie, rude, berie rude, butt foonie... nevertheless welcome back!!!

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Rafa-el and David.
See, I know my sources better than you and I stand by my statement. Bukhari 4557 is supposed to be quoting Quran 3:110" NO WHERE IN 3:110 are the words You bring them with chain around their necks. So sorry David and rafa-el, you still have it wrong, Like I told you before David QURAN RULES over any other source.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

David
What abrogated verse did I appeal to. Muahhamad nor Allah said Quran 2:256 was abrogated so what are you talking about!! LOL, you want to have a mans opinion over rule Allahs words???Show me where Allah or Muhammad said such verse was abrogated . You cant. Just LIKE YOU ADMITTED in the debate that you cant show where Muhammad said such verses were abrogated.

As Quran 6:114 says " Shall I seek a judge OTHER THAN ALLAH, while it is He who has sent down the Book in detail?"

You want me to take some ones opinion over Allah??? So David sorry, you dont know my religions sources better than me.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

To sepher,Nakdimon and Fatman,

The point is the Mushirks (pagans) are clearly said to have broken this treaty made at the sacred Mosque and ATTACKED THE MUSLIM 1st. Quran 9:1-13. That was the point. It was asked where did I get the info that Meccans attacked the muslims 1st and broke the treaty. I gave the verse and chapter where it is mentioned right there in context. So face it, its right there in the Quran 9:1-13.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Getrealman

It was sepher who brung up Hitler and The nazis who were white supremist Christians. Thats why I mentioned it. What I feel is that the predominate version of Christianity which promotes Movies, books, and pictures of God as an old white man, Jesus as a white man, angels as little white children, and whose Ideas & beliefs were shaped and formulated by Western Europeans instead of people from the middle east where Jesus roamed, makes it a western European mans religion.

Nakdimon said...

Ibn Shaytan said: "..."

I thought he said something. But anyways, like I thought, no rebuttal answer to my questions. So my arguments still stand. Hows about is Shadeed. Care to respond?

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Alfred said: "You have been misled to islam by someone who said to you that Christianity was racist and violent to black people (and don't deny it... we were close friends...), and now you see that's not the case, but you can't leave your false religion. Be a man and leave it!"


Oh yes he can leave his religion. But not without his head. Remember, there is no compulsion in religion so you always have a choise in Islam: either you stay and you keep your head or you leave without it.

LOL!

That is the religion of piece!

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Hmm Hitlers Alleged secret table talks, Meanwhile what we know as CONFIRMED writings of Hitler , and even Pictures of Him going to Church and even pictures of Nazis in Church service.

Heres what we know Hitler said ( not alleged secret talk)
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders" -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Nakdimon said...

Rafa-el_1 said: "We muslims leave islam for Christ cause we know Christ and Islam. You so called Christians leave Christ for Islam cause you are ignorant off both."

WOW! That explains a lot. Thanks for the clarification Rafa.

Nakdimon

MrIslamAnswersback said...

David

No David I wont call you racist and a Bigot, Just a mis-information spreading anti- Islamist. I present Islam from its Top Authority THE QURAN. So its nothing about reinventing to suit myself, its about presenting what the Top source says. Its absolutely shocking that you base arguments on unsupported claims from peoples opinion that cant be up held with evidence from Allah or Muhammad. Thats what shocking. But such is the way of the anti-islamist to mis-lead and mis-inform .

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Alforecca
I hid nothing, I presented what our Top source (the Quran) says.

ignorant and bigoted statements of your Christians brothers here is whats truly disgusting.I see that not one of you reminded Fernando to love everyone and not use such words against muslims. Thats the true sign of your disgusting false man worshiping religion.

David Wood said...

Shadid said: "Rafa-el and David.
See, I know my sources better than you and I stand by my statement. Bukhari 4557 is supposed to be quoting Quran 3:110" NO WHERE IN 3:110 are the words You bring them with chain around their necks. So sorry David and rafa-el, you still have it wrong, Like I told you before David QURAN RULES over any other source."

This is absolutely amazing. Abu Hurairah, one of Muhammad's companions, offers a commentary on a verse. If I were a Muslim, I would say to myself, "Who knows more about Islam, me or one of Muhammad's companions, a man who heard the Qur'an from Muhammad's own lips? Muhammad's companion, of course. Therefore, I will respect his view."

Shadid's reaction is different. He thinks: "Hmmm. This man is saying something about Islam that I don't agree with. Well, who knows Islam better, me or one of Muhammad's companions? Me, of course! So who cares what the companions said? Abu Hurairah is a liar and a deceiver! Muhammad's companions were false teachers! Don't trust them! Trust me!"

It never ceases to amaze me how much modern Muslims are willing to recreate Islam in their own image.

David Wood said...

Shadid said: "David
What abrogated verse did I appeal to. Muahhamad nor Allah said Quran 2:256 was abrogated so what are you talking about!!"

Muhammad said that 2:256 was abrogated when he began delivering Surah 9. That's how Muslims understood it. That's how your greatest commentators understood it. The only people who don't understand this are modern, Westernized Muslims like yourself.

So once again we find Shadid claiming that he knows Islam better than practically everyone else. If I were a Muslim, I would say, "Hmmm. I like what 2:256 says. But according to the greatest Muslim commentators, it's been abrogated. Well, I assume that people like Ibn Kathir understood this better than I do, so I will respect their view."

Shadid reacts differently: "What? Ibn Kathir and virtually every other Muslim commentator for the first several centuries of Islam says that 2:256 was abrogated (or that it only applied to Christians and Jews who paid they Jizya)? What do they know? I'm the real scholar here! Ibn Kathir was a liar and a deceiver! Don't listen to him! Listen to me!"

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Rafa-el

LOL, you had no credibility on Pal Talk , nor here. All your claims and arguments were refuted on pal talk and here so what!!? So you still a liar. And you statement means nothing. I left Christianity Because I know the facts about Christianity's falsehood.

You left Islam because you were an ignorant secular arab following local customs and you did'nt know Islam.

Like Allahs says about the ignorant desert Arabs Quran 9:97 "and the desert Arabs are worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits Allah has revealed to His messenger, and Allah is all knower ,all wise". Thats you !

MrIslamAnswersback said...

WOW amazing David

You totally ignore that what is attributed to a companion doesnt say what ISLAMs TOP AUTHORITY (the Quran) says. The Quran does not say what this hadith says. So David, HELLOOOOO we take the Quran over it. Get It??? No , you clearly dont. Play stupid all day, but the Quran doesnt say you bring them in chains any where in that verse.

The anti-islamist never cease to amaze me,how they know all Muslim believe the Quran is the Top Source and authority in Islam but use other than the Quran to make arguments against Islam. Then when the Quran is quoted against their claim, the agenda having, blind and deaf pretending anti Islamist, says "Hmm, Im gonna stick with this over Quran"( even though the statement in Quran refuted their claim).

Of course you do that to suit your anti-islamist agenda. Let me repeat it one last time. QURAN is our top authority.

Quran 6:114 " Shall I seek a judge other than Allah, while it is He who has sent down the book in DETAIL"

HELLLOOOOOO CAN YOU READ?! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE CLEAR WORDS THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THE QURANNNNNNN!!!!

If your going to keep using the same arguments ( which you already admit you do) with out acknowledging the facts of Islams Top Source against your arguments, then theres no need for us to continue.Take me off you e-mail list, and be about your way, were done. I wish you much FAILURE in your sorry attempts against Islam.

And always remember the statements of the young lady in our last debate who said she CONVERTED TO ISLAM after our debate ( did Jesus rise from the dead). LOL All Praise is due to Allah.

Dont ever forget that , A women converted to Islam after a debate you had.

ben malik said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alforreca said...

MisterIslam... can you tell US ALL where Fernando«s words were offensive? Can you tell US ALL were he made false claims?

So far you have not dealt with this aspect, the only thing you have been doing is shouting out loud like a crying baby... and telling the truth (as Jesus told His followers) is never offensive unless to those, like you, that can't deal with it.

Get in touch with reality or get treatment for you inflammation of the ego complex!!!

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Muahmmad no where says Quran 2:256 was abrogated.

Again you admit the differences of opinion . WHY?? If it was clear and cut a ruling from Allah or statement from Muhammad there would be no differing opinions. Yet you want to ignore that.
In fact in The book " Quran & its interpreters" By Mahmoub M. Ayoub which shows the varying interpreters opinions says the verse was not abrogated on page 253.Imam Saleh Abdullah Bin Humaid (Imam of the Mosque in Mecca) in his book "A Refutation of Doubts" pg.23 Says , after quoting Quran 2:256 " In Islam compulsion in any sense is DISALLOWED". Pg 24 " Anyone who is coerced to accept Islam does not benefit by that belief". He is not a western muslim, he must know more than me as he was chosen to be the Imam of Islam's holiest place( Mecca Mosque), yet he agrees with me David! He clearly doesnt think its abrogated or why would he mention it?! So what are you talking about David?!

So stop playing like you have some scholarly knowledge of Islam because you read a few books ( with your anti-Islamic bias).

Alfred said...

Shadid... how sad it is to see how low you have gotten... you were a candid young child, full of love towards others; you were always willing to listen to theirs opinions even when they did not agree with you... what that false-religion you know (badly) by the name of islam has done to you. To sad.

Abdul Haziz said...

Assalaamu alaykum brother Shadid...

I have been following this blog for quite a while now, and have been in some exchange of words in the past with Fernando. I can guarantee to you that, knowing him the way I know, he had never the intention to be rude or offensive.

Your words, on the contrary, are not doing Islam any benifit.

getrealman said...

Mr. Lewis,

I enjoyed listening to the debate but I'm a little shocked after seeing the obvious festering anger you have inside. Something tells me that even with your outbursts you are probably still a little more explosive than what I see here. I could be wrong, but it's hard to imagine you are a peaceful, peace-loving soul.

By the way, there are so very many grammatical errors and improper wording in your posts that "ignorant" is probably something you do not want to ever accuse anyone of being, at least until you are able to better present yourself. I understand we all get a little carried away and type quickly without checking our wording, but this is not what's happening here. Just a thought about a little humility when tempted to insult other people for what you perceive to be... well, ignorance!

Best wishes for a peaceful day.

GRM

ben malik said...

Either Shadid is slowly becoming a Quran only Muslim like his mentor Hamza Abdul Malik or he is resorting to Islam's doctrine of lying and concealing the facts from the disbelievers. You take your pick.

ben malik said...

Let's see how long she lasts as a Muslim once she sees the ugly face of Islam and Muhammad. It is a fact that you lose most of your converts within the first five years. I recommend the book Losing My Religion by Jeffrey Lang, a convert to Islam, who admits that most converts leave this false religion several years after conversion and wrote a book trying to address this problem.

So don't be shouting praises just yet.

The Fat Man said...

MrIslamAnswersback said
"To sepher,Nakdimon and Fatman,
The point is the Mushirks (pagans) are clearly said to have broken this treaty made at the sacred Mosque and ATTACKED THE MUSLIM 1st. Quran 9:1-13. That was the point."

Wow, so Nakdimon puts forword the case from islamic sources that it was the Muslims who broke the treaty over and over again. And your only response is that the quran say it was the meccans. So if the Quran disgree's with history even if that history is from islamic sources then the quran is right? AMAZING. Anyone else see a problem with this logic?

Rafa-el_1 said...

Should we believe mister Islam or the eminent scholars of islam?

let see how the scholars explain the hadeeth I posted!


Al-Bukhaari (4557) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: " ‘You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind’ [Aal- Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning]." He said: "You are the best (i.e., the most beneficial) of people for mankind, you bring them in the chains that are around their necks until they enter Islam

Fiqh al-Da’wah by Sayyid Qutb, 217-222>

This is something for which Islam deserves to be praised, not condemned. The defeatists should fear Allaah lest they distort this religion and cause it to become weak on the basis of the claim that it is a religion of peace. Yes, it is the religion of peace but in the sense of saving all of mankind from worshipping anything other than Allaah and submitting all of mankind to the rule of Allaah. This is the religion of Allaah, not the ideas of any person or the product of human thought, so that those who promote it should feel ashamed to state its ultimate goal, which is that all religion (worship) should be for Allaah alone.

Source: http://islamqa.com/en/ref/43087

Rafa-el_1 said...

Lets investigate the claims being made by mister Islam.

Shadeed said:


LOL, you had no credibility on Pal Talk , nor here. All your claims and arguments were refuted on pal talk and here so what!!? So you still a liar. And you statement means nothing.

Rafa-el says

You didn’t refute me because I was just quoting a particular hadeeth. A hadeeth you claimed that I misquoted. (You still didn’t provide evidence that I actually did misquote the Hadeeth)
Btw : you seek to refute Abu Hurairah and his understanding of the verse.

Shadeed said:

I left Christianity Because I know the facts about Christianity's falsehood.

Rafa-el says:

And yet you failed miserable in your debate with David and Nabeel to demonstrate it.

Shadeed:

You left Islam because you were an ignorant secular arab following local customs and you did'nt know Islam.

Rafa-el says:

If that is the case, the people where I used to teach the Islamic tenets to new comers (in the faith) didn’t understand Islam quite well… You can contact the Muslim information center, to ask about my credentials.

Btw: I’m not a arab


Shadeed said:

Like Allahs says about the ignorant desert Arabs Quran 9:97 "and the desert Arabs are worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits Allah has revealed to His messenger, and Allah is all knower ,all wise". Thats you !

Rafa-el says:

According to you he left the biggest scholars and companions of muhammad ignorant to.Cause you don’t agree with there interpretation.. So 1 of you is ignorant.. hmm who might that be?

Sepher Shalom said...

Shadeed said: "It was sepher who brung up Hitler and The nazis"

Actually, it came up in the debate. Apparently the audience member's comments that were not filmed included some reference to Hitler.

Shadeed said: "What I feel is that the predominate version of Christianity which promotes Movies, books, and pictures of God as an old white man, Jesus as a white man, angels as little white children, and whose Ideas & beliefs were shaped and formulated by Western Europeans instead of people from the middle east where Jesus roamed, makes it a western European mans religion."

Shadeed, you mixing pop-culture with something that is absolutely not related to it [i.e. the text of the Bible]. The Bible is a Semitic book, of Semitic thought, written by Semites. No ones portrayal of people in movies and art can change that. If you were watching a movie or play about the Bible in Japan, wouldn't it be expected that the actors would most likely be Japanese? In Mexico, Gospel films portray Yeshua and His Disciples with Mexican actors. If the population numbers and economic power structure of America had been reversed and it was African Americans that were historically dominant, don't you think there would be a Black face applied to all the things you mention? Would that suddenly make it a "Black man's religion"?

If you are so off-put by what you see as a culturally inaccurate portrayal of things, perhaps I can suggest checking out a Messianic congregation, where emphasis is placed on the Semitic/Jewish culture of the Bible? In any event, the native culture of people who practice the teachings of the Bible vary all over the world, but this is neither here nor there, as it does not alter what is written in the text, nor the context in which it was originally written.

Shadeed, I don't know what you have been through in regards to race and racism. I don't know what it's like to be a Black man living in Virginia USA.....but I do know what it is like to be separated from the culture of my ancestors and struggle with my identity, always conscious of the fact that I am "different". I also know that the only true empowerment is forgiveness, and the only one that can apply the salve of healing to your soul, is the Mashiyach. Mashiyach isn't about race, or even religion. He is about shalom. Shalom is not "peace" in the shallow sense of absence of war. Shalom means wholeness/completeness/transcendent-calmness. The only true shalom comes from the Prince of Shalom, Yeshua. I'm praying for you Shadeed.

Alfred said...

MisterIslam... Shadid Lewis... you did not leave Christianity because you realized anything about it, rather due to that girl, Farkhonda al-Disuqi.

Please! Stop lying! Was that what you learned in your new religion? That was not the education your good mother gave to you. Remember all the sacrifices she did for you.

May Jesus bless you.

Fernando said...

MisterIslam... ounce again: «A religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window...»

where is in thise affirmation a false statement?

We'll be receptibe to your teachings...

The Fat Man said...

MuslimAnswersback said
"a young lady in the back responding by saying SHE CONVERTED TO ISLAM after my debate with David on "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"

I love hearing westerners recite the Shahada, to hear them stumble and fumble with the Arabic, to hear the Arabic words explained to them because they don’t understand what they are saying. It is truly amazing to me.

I have no doubt that the One true God uses Islam to separate the wheat from the chaff. The Chaff goes to Islam, and the wheat goes to Christ. All for his glory.

Funny side note to illustrate this point. There is a audio file you can search for it on youtube. It’s a man reciting something in Arabic with the same cadence as you hear Muslims recite the quran. Many a time I would go into Muslim revert rooms on paltalk and play this audio. All the Muslim western reverts would say how beautiful it sounded, how the words of Allah really spoke to their hearts. Only problem is that what the man was saying in Arabic was horrible things about Allah and Mohamed, saying they were Satan etc...

David and Nabeel I have no doubt God gave you both great oratory and debating skills he use’s to proclaim his glory and grace. And I have no doubt that God has used the two of you to not only sow the seeds, but also to pull some Muslims from the flames. However I also have no doubt that he also uses these debates and dialogues to excise those in his body that are not of his body. That he uses you to cut off every branch that is in the true vine of Christ that does not bear fruit.

Either way Gods glory is always manifest in the saving grace of God that is Jesus Christ

Nakdimon said...

Shadeed said: “No David I wont call you racist and a Bigot, Just a mis-information spreading anti- Islamist. I present Islam from its Top Authority THE QURAN.”


If the Qur’an is “top authority” then why is so much of your religion in conflict with the Qur’an and favors the hadith? I will name one example and let you deal with that.

I will take a wild guess and assume that you pray 5 times a day, according to the secondary source, the Hadith. Yet your “top authority”, the Qur’an tells you to pray 3 times a day. Why do you follow the Sunnah OVER THE QUR’AN?

I think this is a valid question in the light of you rejecting the Hadith when it elaborates on the Qur’an.



Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Shadeed said: "a young lady in the back responding by saying SHE CONVERTED TO ISLAM after my debate with David on "Did Jesus rise from the dead?"

I suspect that she was already sucked into Islam by muslims and made up her mind to join Islam. It is unfathomable to think that she joined Islam based on your arguments in that debate. I already showed in the comment section on YouTube how you just made up arguments out of thin air.

Nakdimon

The Fat Man said...

Nakdimon said...
"I suspect that she was already sucked into Islam by muslims and made up her mind to join Islam"
Well it is possible that she was going to stumble and fumble through the Shahada and it was decided to do it after the debate for dramma. However it really doenst matter.
If this woman claimed to be a christian I can make some assumptions based on dealing with so called Christians who converted to islam.

1. She probably could not give a acurate biblical definition of the Trinity.

2. More then likely had no historical information on the church, and the bible. ie. the common muslim error. Constantine invented the trinity and compiled the bible

More then likely she is victim to fales logic. Applying Hyper Litteralism to the bible but ignoring it when applied to the quran.

Either way if she claimed to be a christian, then God has taken her away from the body, and cut off her non fruiting bearing branch. He speperates the wheat from the chaft.

The Fat Man said...

A few verses to back up my previous statements.

1 Tim 4:1-2
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Time for some offense. Since David believes we should blindly follow the early scholars without fail,lets see what early Christian scholars and leaders said about Violence and peace.

1st we see according to Luke 12:51-53 That Jesus says he comes not to bring peace but division. House holds with be in strife because family members will be at odds with one another.

Augustine, celebrated Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo. The influence of his ideas upon basic Christian theology is inestimable, and his opinion of "heresies" (from the Greek hairesis or "choice") is unmistakable. As part of his opposition to the Donatist heresies, he developed his doctrine of Cognite intrare, or "compel them to enter" which was used throughout the Middle Ages to justify the suppression of dissent and oppression of difference. No excuses David he was your early Christian scholar.

In 392 emperor Theodosius in Theodosius' code it was written:

"We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retributions of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."

naruto shippuden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MrIslamAnswersback said...

More offense.
Origen another of your early Christian scholars says that if Christians came to control their own government and nation they should do as the Hebrews did with the laws of the torah he says ,
" But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from
them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or
otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to
subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws
would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy.

Origen Origen Contra Celsus Book 7: XXVI,

No excuses or double standards David, follow your early scholars.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

In the book "A History of Medieval Christianity"pg 159-160 we see that in 1204 Pope Innocent III supported his stance to attack Constantinople, by using Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,bring hither, and kill them before me".

Ah ahhh,no excuses, this is how the early church and its leaders understood this verse and used it.Follow the understanding of the early church David, don't be a hypocrite.

naruto shippuden said...

I watched the entire debate with a neutral mind,although I'm a christian.David Wood expressed a lot of strong points that Lewis failed to address.Lewis kept on saying that it is only allowed for Muslims to fight back when they are oppressed.If I am to follow this line of reasoning then I would assume that Lewis is giving the Abu Sayaf and other Muslim groups that are fighting against governments justification and therefore He himself should join the rest of his brothers who claim to be oppressed.And therefore,I conclude that the bible and Christianity don't allow any violations which Lewis failed to refute poorly.

naruto shippuden said...

I watched the entire debate with a neutral mind,although I'm a christian.David Wood expressed a lot of strong points that Lewis failed to address.Lewis kept on saying that it is only allowed for Muslims to fight back when they are oppressed.If I am to follow this line of reasoning then I would assume that Lewis is giving the Abu Sayaf and other Muslim groups that are fighting against governments justification and therefore He himself should join the rest of his brothers who claim to be oppressed.And therefore,I conclude that the New Testament and Christianity don't allow any violations which Lewis failed to refute poorly.

David Wood said...

Yes, Shadid, your comments are offensive. We're offended that you're trying to insult our intelligence.

Did I say that people should blindly follow early scholars? No. I pointed out that Ibn Kathir is widely recognized as the greatest Sunni commentator of all time, that he knows vastly more than you do, and that his position therefore holds far more weight than your position.

I pointed out that Abu Hurairah was one of Muhammad's companions, and that a man who heard the Qur'an from Muhammad's lips probably has a better idea of how to interpret it than a Westernized Muslim like yourself.

And when we add to this the fact that the Qur'an clearly commands violence towards unbelievers (so long as you don't twist and mangle the meaning with your Western style of scripture-twisting) and that we find the same thing in the Hadith, the case is closed.

So do you have clear commands from Jesus that we are to fight unbelievers? No, you don't. Do you have comments from our greatest scholars saying that we are to fight unbelievers? No, you don't. Do you have interpretations from Jesus' closest followers saying that we should fight unbelievers? No, you don't. So am I employing double standards? Not at all.

Does everyone see the desperation here? Shadid has been thoroughly refuted on all of his views, and it's clear that the only reason he's reinterpreting the Qur'an is that he's a Western Muslim with Western values. It's also clear that virtually everyone commenting on this blog knows more about the early Muslim sources than he does. And now he's attacking Christianity in a desperate attempt to direct attention away from the violence in Islam. He's even pretending I said things that I never said. The desperation never ceases!

Let's face it, Shadid. The Qur'an refutes your view. The Hadith refutes your view. Your greatest scholars are against you. Using your methodology, people can make Islam whatever they want it to be. Is that the sort of religion people should convert to--a soft, shifting, malleable, putty-in-your-hands, play-dough version of Islam?

David Wood said...

Shadid said: "In the book "A History of Medieval Christianity"pg 159-160 we see that in 1204 Pope Innocent III supported his stance to attack Constantinople, by using Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,bring hither, and kill them before me". Ah ahhh,no excuses, this is how the early church and its leaders understood this verse and used it.Follow the understanding of the early church David, don't be a hypocrite."

Shadid, you're deliberately being deceptive. A Catholic pope (whom practically no one on the blog would recognize as a scholar) in 1204 (more than eleven centuries after Jesus) says something, and you say that this is the position of the EARLY CHURCH??????????

Hmmmm. We might as well say that Osama bin Laden is one of Islam's early scholars. But we're not that desperate. You are. And now you're doing the only thing you know how to do when cornered--deceive, misrepresent, distort, invent things, etc.

Notice, everyone, that Shadid has compared Abu Hurairah and Ibn Kathir to a thirteenth century pope. Truly Shadid must be headed to the Qur'an-only camp!

The Fat Man said...

MrIslamAnswersback thank you for proving me right as well as the bible the truth. Like I said he has no understanding of biblical truths. Like the bible says
1 Tim 4:1-2
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

1 John 2:19
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

The Fat Man said...

David Wood Said
Truly Shadid must be headed to the Qur'an-only camp!

Funny I was thinking the same thing. I forgot to thank Hamza when I called in to Iron Shaprpens Iron for his consitency.

David Wood said...

We see Shadid throwing out the views of Islam's greatest scholars and of Muhammad's companions. In another thread, we see Osama throwing out Islam's most reliable collections of ahadith. Are Muslims realizing that they have to retreat to the Qur'an-only position?

MrIslamAnswersback said...

And since you are Heretic Protestants let us see what your early Scholars and Leaders said.

In " Christianity in the West 1400-1700" pg 86, we learn that Martin Luther believed that Jews should be enslaved or thrown out of Christian lands, and that their ghettos and synagogues should be burned. He also felt rebellious Anabaptist should be killed and publicly affirmed a 1531 edict by Wittenberg theologians sanctioning their execution. ( "The Heretics: heresy through the ages") By Walter Nigg pgs 304-305.

So we see the early protestants sanctioned violence against enemies of the protestant church as well. SO obey your early scholars David.

Wow Amazing how you PC modern christians ignore the teachings of your early scholars ( sound familar)???

MrIslamAnswersback said...

I take the Quran is the Highest Authority position. And The Quran does Call for violence against all non believers. Quran 60:8, 9 is clear. You refuted nothing . You give alleged statements of other than Muhammad or Allah. Once more that fact that these scholars differ is once again, the clear proof they had nothing direct from Allah or Muhammad or there would be no dispute.And Here I gave a clear verse from the Quran that ask who should be taken as a judge other than Allah, and you still want to play stupid like you did'nt read it.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

I just told you what the Quran says and I clearly mentioned how the scholars differ. So what are you talking about throw out. So how about you? Are you throwing out the opinion of your early scholars or do you accept their views on Christians use of violence?! Dont be a hypocrite now!!

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Ben Malik

No such teaching exist in Sunni Islam. Its the lying idiot christians who claim we have such a teaching. We dont. And Fernandos calling muslims, Muslimes was the insult. Stop acting like you did'nt see his rude insults.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

David
In Islam we dont have a clergy class nor an Islamic pope. What we see is that the scholars differ but you play stupid and ignore that. What we have that is Clear and refutes you is the Quran, but you rather hold on to one of the differing opinions of a scholar. I also mention the Imam of the Mosque in Mecca Saleh Abdullah Bin Humaid where he mentions Quran 2:256 and says compulsion is not allowed in anycase and a person would not benefit from such ( A Refutation of Doubt pg 23,24. He is not a westerner, he must know what he talking about to have the position of Imam of the Holiest site in Islam,I also mentioned the varying Views from The Book "The Quran & Its Interpreters" which said Quran 2:256 was not abrogated, yet you remained silent on that, why David??

Oh I know why, because you must keep up the fake image , that you think you know what your talking about when you really dont.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

David,
But the Catholic popes were all there was for centuries until the Protestant reformation. So I demand you hold to them and their views like you demand I must hold the DIFFERING views of early muslim scholars. I also mentioned some of Christendoms most noted scholars and leaders, so you must take their views as you demand I take the DIFFERING views of early muslims scholars.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

And there you go Again repeating again what was already refuted, proof your not listening, you just debate for the hell of it. I told you during the debate , that I have this position because, this is what Islam teaches. Not because of any western values. What western values??

Western values teach us that materialism is the way to go, that violence is the way we solve our problems, that might is right, that non westerners lives don't matter. These are western values.

Just like the recent poll that exposed that Anglo American christians favor torture and war over most other americans. So dont give me that BS about western values cause me to take this position. yeah right! Its because of western so called values, that you can hardly find a Native American on the street of the US. It western values that has North and South America speaking the languages of Christian European invaders.

Its western values that gave us the Atomic Bomb and the various other weapons of death. Its western values that has Western nations as the Top Arms dealers ( except for China). Thats all the west has shown is violence, hatred and Bigotry, War, and oppression. Thats what I learn from western values. You got some nerve!!

David Wood said...

Shadid said: "And since you are Heretic Protestants let us see what your early Scholars and Leaders said."

Shadid, you obviously have no clue what Christians believe. (But what should we expect from a man who rejected Christianity because his pastor played the saxophone?) Do you think I care at all what Martin Luther said? Who in the world is Martin Luther? Is he our most respected scholar? Not at all. Is he even close? No. He's a guy who (correctly) rebelled against some false teachings and practices. That's it.

Shadid said: "I take the Quran is the Highest Authority position. And The Quran does Call for violence against all non believers."

Wow! I'm glad you just admitted it! Now we're making progress!

Shadid said: "So what are you talking about throw out. So how about you? Are you throwing out the opinion of your early scholars or do you accept their views on Christians use of violence?!"

What early scholars? You know that Martin Luther was fifteen centuries after Jesus, right?

Shadid said: "Its the lying idiot christians who claim we have such a teaching."

You are truly one of the angriest, most hostile people I know.

Shadid said: "I also mention the Imam of the Mosque in Mecca Saleh Abdullah Bin Humaid where he mentions Quran 2:256 and says compulsion is not allowed in anycase and a person would not benefit from such"

You realize, don't you, that you're quoting the son of the man I quoted to show that, according to Islam, there are four stages, the final of which is to fight everyone? And notice what you've just done. You throw out Ibn Kathir and practically all of the early Muslim commentators in favor of a modern scholar who says what you want him to say. Again, if that's your method, Islam can be anything for anyone, for you can always find someone to support your view. So is Islam really putty in your hands?

Shadid said: "But the Catholic popes were all there was for centuries until the Protestant reformation."

You rejected Christianity, and you've become an apologist against Christianity, and yet you still haven't the slightest knowledge of Christian history. Does it ever occur to you to do some scholarly research before you make your absurd comments? You just said tha the only Christians for centuries were popes!

Shadid said: "What western values??"

The Western values I'm referring to are (1) you don't go around killing people because of their religious beliefs, (2) people are allowed to freely choose their religion, (3) people are allowed to openly criticize opposing views, etc. You know, all that stuff in the Constitution. You've absorbed it so much that you don't even realize that your values are completely opposed to the values of Muhammad and Islam. You've reinvented Islam in the image of the West. Wouldn't you agree that Islam promotes our Bill of Rights? Why? Because you're seeing Islam through your Western glasses.

Shadid, if you were to go up to the early Muslims and present your version of Islam, I think the early Muslims would say, "Don't make us sick with this peace-loving nonsense. Allah commanded us to fight those who do not believe. How could Allah's statement be any clearer? Who are you to reinterpret Allah's commands? Are you playing God with us?"

Nakdimon said...

Shadeed, to declare people liars without backing your claim up doesnt fare well. Rafa-el quoted Bukhari and gave us the reference. You say that Bukhari doesn’t say that. David pulled out Bukhari and quoted the same thing. You maintain that David doesn’t accurately present Bukhari. I think it’s only fair that you quote the reference from Bukhari that you claimed Rafa-el lied about and that David was “misinformed” about. And while you’re at it, give us the version of your translation of the Sahih Bukhari you quote from. Maybe that will clear some things up.

Nakdimon said...

Shadeed, there was a documentary the other day on TV here in Holland and it was about three people taking the Hadj. A white American Muslim woman, a black Muslim from South Africa and an Indonesian. They were followed by camera. All excited about finally making the Hadj. Once they got to Mekkah, they were amazed about the discrimination they faced. Not the Indonesian, but the woman and the South African. The black man even got so angry and disappointed that he thought at one point that his Hadj was a complete failure. The woman even broke in tears because of the comments she got from fellow Muslims. Two very devout people going on the Hadj found themselves discriminated against.

So don’t present Islam as the religion that solves all problems. Islam has its own sorrows and cases of discrimination. I think this “black victim role play” should stop. I cant stand blacks that see discrimination of others towards blacks everywhere they look. Stop the self-pity for crying out loud. I talk to you like this because I myself am a “man of colour”. Discrimination is with PEOPLE not affiliated with RELIGIONS! And if you are so upset with whites, please explain to us how you can revere a white prophet and wish that your god grants him peace whenever you mention his name. Especially when one considers he discriminatingly called blacks “raisin heads”, owned black slaves, claimed that dreaming of a black woman is an evil omen and said that a black man reminds one of Satan.

Nakdimon said...

“Shadid said: "Its the lying idiot christians who claim we have such a teaching."

Shadeed, I think you really should check your sources before you make comments like these. So WE are lying because we found that:

• The Qur’an calls for violence against non-believers
• The Hadith backs the Qur’an up and is more detailed in its violence against non-believers
• The Tafsirs back the Qur’an and the Hadith up and correctly explains them as being violent against non-believers
• Modern Muslims twist all these early sources to make them sound peaceful, while they actually call for violence against non-believers

Yet you claim that Christianity is violent while:

• Yeshua never called to fight others
• His Apostles never called to fight others
• The early believers for centuries followed these commandments and never fought others
• Modern Christians point out that Muslims have to twist texts and totally re-interpret them in order to make Christianity look violent

Yet WE are the liars and YOU tell the truth. I must say, that Islam is without peer! A system that can make bad look good and good look bad and have all its followers unanimously adapt that view is completely without merit. What is it about Islam that makes people think like this? From the most intelligent Muslims (Osama bin Laden) to the intellectually depraved (Nadir Ahmed), they all have this twisted view of reality.

Fernando said...

Dera naruto shippuden... glad to see you arounde here... Hoppe to see your comments more oftten... God blees you!!!

Fernando said...

Mister Islam... your chose and piquing off some historical aspectes from Christianitie is jueste a blind attempte nott to deal withe youre own probllem...

we Christians do nott need the opinion of this ore thate theologian to express to us whate the Bible says or nott (yes, thei are early historical views off some aspects, butt not to bee considered ORTHODOX or NORMATIVE or eben all off them accurate...); on the other side, you muslimes do say thate the qur'an MUSTE bee undestood in conexion with somme ORTHODOX haddits and so on...

It's you, MisterIslam, that has to deel with this problem inside your own religionn...

you cannot apllie the critiria your false religione uses in its "theologie" (amartologia would bee a better therm) to another religion thate does nott follow those critiria... foony that you do nott know this... do you habbe some sort off a problem?

and ounce again: «a religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window...»

Fernando said...

MisterIslam said: «now I'll be on the attack» (or something likke thate)... ignoring the hermeneutical tools to understand this or thate religion is, indeed, an attack, butt ann attack off stupidity... I'm nott saying that you, MisterIslam, are a stupid persone (you're nott... juste a misguided human being...), butt your arguments are so, so, so stupid tahte iff they were dandruff leafs, the floor around you would bee as white as teh northe pole...

More: the western values (as you call them) as as fao from Christian values as the sun is from Pluto... yes, they emerged from an ANTIENT Christian society that rejected it's past... on the other side, the so calles muslime values are inseperable from the core structure of the society and culture off muslime countries who dweel on violence, cultural and religious intolerance, infamous racism, un-human slavery, backwardness, misogenia, misanthropia, paranoic idea off being victinms, cultural incapacity (do nott use in muslime countries whate the west gabe to the worls and they would bee in the stone age...) and so onn... do you see the difference? The relation of wester values to Christianity is likke tahte off the tree with its shadow; the relattion off muslim (anti)values with islam is like the torso and the harms off an human being...

MisterIslam... please: keep attacking Christianity... itt'll bee an opportunity to show to you your utter ignorance...

and ounce agains:

«a religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window...»... teel uss all where I'm wrong...

Fernando said...

MisterIslam saide: «I take the Quran is the Highest Authority position. And The Quran does Call for violence against all non believers»... Finallie some muslime admite thate islam is violent... so: whie did you get annoied with my remark? Simplie szchizophrenia? Or you simplie do nott accept thate non-muslimes sai whate you know it's true?

Ounce again: «a religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window»...

We are all expecting an appology from you, MisterIslam...

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Just as I suspected. David Rejects the opinions of early Christian scholars. HYPOCRITE!!!!! He throws out Martin Luther whom, without, David might not be a protestant today.

Your a liar to claim I made the Imam say what I wanted him to say. Right in his book( A Refutation of Doubts) on pg 23,24 He quotes Quran 2:256 and then goes into how compulsion to accept Islam is not allowed in any case. You just cant stand the fact that your wrong.

Where did I say the only Christians were popes?? That does'nt even make any sense.You have a bad habit of making up things that other people said.

And whats this western nonsense you keep mentioning. I guess the Christian has redone their religion to fit secular western Ideas, because none of those Ideas were allowed by the early church as I'm sure you know. Catholics & Protestants killed many who opposed their Ideas , or dared to speak out.

The West did in fact go around killing people because of their beliefs ( native Americans, Africans, Asians all killed because of their race and different beliefs). The other ideas you mentioned are secular . The bible does'nt say you can choose to believe what ever you want. The Bible does'nt say you can express opposing views . So what are you, a western secularist or a bible follower?

MrIslamAnswersback said...

If I went up to the early Muslims, they would agree that Quran is the top authority. Then they might say what are all these other books other than Quran, that people make rulings over Quran with, " we had no such books at our time". And in fact History attest to the fact that the early muslims followed Islam in agreement with my position.

Islam spread to China, with no war or conflict. Historian Thomas Arnold says,
"History makes its clear that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam upon the conquered races IS ONE OF THE MOST FANTASTICALLY ABSURD MYTHS THAT WESTERN HISTORIANS & CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES HAVE EVER REPEATED".
( The Preaching of Islam By Sir Thomas W. Arnold)

Notice he charges westerners and Christians like yourself with spreading lies and Myths about Islam.

Another is historian and scientist Anta Diop in his book "Precolonial Black Africa" pg 102.

" The Arab conquest dear to sociologist are necessary to their theories but did not exist in reality.To this day NO RELIABLE historical documents substantiate such Theories".

Professor Jan Carew of North Western University said,
" For centuries, Muslims,Christians, & Jews had lived side by side, and in many instances had so intermarried that numerous families were part Muslim, part Christian and part Jew.The teachings of the Prophet,too had stressed repeatedly that people of all races and colors were equal in the sight of Allah, and these teachings were not only preached but practiced."

I could mention many more,but these are enough to show the early Muslims did not have this idea of fight and kill non-believers no matter what. So there is no reinvention of Islam here. You are the one twisting and reinventing Islam , as Thomas Arnold charged you anti islamist , to spread your "fantastically absurd myths".

Just face it, YOUR WRONG!!

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Shadid said: "I take the Quran is the Highest Authority position. And The Quran does Call for violence against all non believers."

Wow! I'm glad you just admitted it! Now we're making progress!

LOL a TYPO. Is that the best you can do. The Quran does NOT call for violence against All non believers. Again Quran 60:8. You refuse to face it, because it destroys your claims. But as you admitted to me, you use the same arguments over and over and over again, because your not really listening, nor do you care to listen,because your agenda is to attack Islam no matter what.

So Sami Zataari refutes you, but you will use the same arguments again. I refute you, you stil use the same arguments again. Jalal refutes you, you use the same argument again. So we know what your game is.

But again remember you lost a Christian sister to Islam after our debate ( Did Jesus Rise from the dead). All you got was a Ahmadiyah( misguided .not considered true muslims) who had visions of crosses in a dark hotel room. Like thats a reason to become a christian. Notice people convert to Islam based on intellectual , and logical reason, while people become Christians based on foolish reasons, like supposedly seeing Crosses in the sky, or seeing a stain on a bathroom floor that looks like jesus. Or seeing the face of jesus in their burnt toast. I mean come on.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Shadid said: "Its the lying idiot christians who claim we have such a teaching."

You are truly one of the angriest, most hostile people I know.

Oh stop with your sorry holier than thou pompous attitude. Your agenda is to attack Islam, and some of your friends here have called muslims, muslimes. I have a right to take such an attitude.

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Look at Davids double standard.

What early scholars? You know that Martin Luther was fifteen centuries after Jesus, right?

David How many centuries were Hadith books made after Muhammad? How many centuries later was Ibn Kathirs writings of the DIFFERING opinions of interpreters of the Quran?? Did you know that right in Sahih Muslim is a Hadith in which Muahmmad was to have said " Write nothing from me except the Quran" -Sahih Muslim and Is-haah Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

(The Prophet said, "Do not write down anything from me except the Quran." [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 171, and Sahih Muslim]

This Hadith states that the Prophet maintained his anti-Hadith stand until death. [Ahmed, Vol. 1, Page 192]Your hypocrisy and double standards are exposed. Just as I thought.

Im done here. My position stands. Quran is the top source of Islam and the Quran is Clear in Surah 60:8( kind and just treatment to those who are not hostile or attacking the muslims). Hadith were not even supposed to be written according to hadiths it self. But I'm sure you will continue to use the same tired old claims. My job is done here, your argument has been smashed!!!!

Nakdimon said...

Shadeed said: Your a liar to claim I made the Imam say what I wanted him to say. Right in his book( A Refutation of Doubts) on pg 23,24 He quotes Quran 2:256 and then goes into how compulsion to accept Islam is not allowed in any case. You just cant stand the fact that your wrong.

That is not even what David said. David didnt say that you made the imam say what you wanted him to say. He said that you quoted him because he said things that you liked. Yet you quote the other more important sources that support Davids explanations. So, again, before you start calling people liars, make sure you read them correctly.

getrealman said...

I am amazed that so much hostility can reside within a single individual such as Mr. Lewis. If you disagree with him you are either an idiot or a liar, possibly both. I've seen him horribly mangle New Testament scriptures in debate which showed such a lack of understanding of what is being taught that it was a little embarrassing to even watch. Do I think he is an idiot or a liar because he was wrong? No, just an uneducated guy trying to do his best (assuming his motives are proper). And before I start being dubbed a racist I must inform I am Hispanic so I'm probably not a target for such a silly accusation. I can truly say I've known just as many blacks that were racist as I have whites, and both were equally wrong. Obviously the last election was extremely racist as 95% of the black population that voted voted for the president. Seems a little lopsided, doesn't it. Nonetheless, I pray he succeeds as he has at least somewhat removed the racist canard argument.

Mr. Lewis, take a couple of deep breaths, forget what color everyone is, strive to be patient and charitable (calling names doesn't quite qualify for charity and tolerance), and people will listen to what you had to say. They may not agree, but they hopefully will respond as aggressively as you seem to do on a regular basis.

And I believe the word you are looking for is "you're", not "your". Just a friendly attempt to be helpful.

By the way, I am here legally and I pay taxes (just in case you were wondering :-)).

GRM

ben malik said...

Wow, I hit it on the nail. Shadid has officially become a Qurani or Quran only Muslim! He has now joined the ranks of Hamza Abdul Malik. But what does this mean for his future as the imam of a Sunni mosque? Will he do the honest thing and resign, much like Hamza did by closing down his IPC center? Enquiring minds want to know.

The Fat Man said...

MrIslamAnswersback said...
"Islam spread to China, with no war or conflict."

LOL were to begin with this statement. First the obvious. I notice you didnt mention the following.

Conquest of Syria 637
Conquest of Armenia 639
Conquest of Egypt 639
Conquest of North Africa 652
Conquest of Tilbisi 736
Conquest of Souther Italy 827
Conquest of Persia: 633–651
Conquest of Transoxiana: 662–709
Conquest of Sindh: 664–712
Conquest of Hispania: 711–718
Conquest of the Caucasus: 711–750
Conquest of Nubia: 700–1606
Conquest of Anatolia: 1060–1360

Yeah islam spread peacfully into China. Maybe thats why Islam never really took hold in China.

The Fat Man said...

Mrislamanswers back.
I'm wondering what is your opinion on how the early muslims settled disputs over islamic doctrine?

I mean muslims seem to disagree alot on what islam is? What scholars to choose from, what Hadeeths to use, what verses of the quran are abrogated, the context of verses in the quran, How sharia law is to be implemented. What exaclty is Sharia law?

So how did the early muslism settle these disputes?

Alfred said...

Shadid Lewis... I am deeply sad to see how you are suffering. I was also very sad to see that you did not even received a single vote on this poll (http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/islam/TSNG7164L6U8KVCSS) about who's the best muslim apologist... even Nadir Ahmed was considered a better apologist than you. That reminds me listening to your sister saying: "You'll never go to far in this life bro"... on the other hand your sweet mother was always giving her support to you... May God, the Holy Trinity, help you.

Fernando said...

MisterIslam saide: «some of your friends here have called muslims, muslimes. I have a right to take such an attitude»... so, I guesse you're talking about me as mie problems withe english can justifie your actions and amayzing offensivity and rudness... as I saide before: I'm nott familiar withe english and I wright the best I can according to a fonnetic evaluation off the wordes... I've been doing this since the satrt off mie comments arounde here and never, ever, someone critisized me... more: never, ever, ever, anie muslim (now I know I was righting this word wrong) thought I was being offensive... the evil you see in others is rooted in youre heart MisterIslam... and whate does muslime mean to make you gett so angrie? Is thate as offensive as the wordes you're using here about everione onli to conceal your shear ignorance? Grow upp MisterIslam, you childish MUSLIM... (see? no "e"... I hoppe you'll now refrainne from being so rude)

then MisterIslam, in regarde with the use off hadiths, saide: «My job is done here, your argument has been smashed!!!!»... well, another founder off some sort off sect in islam in the making? I thought the hadithes were important to understand islam and the emssage of the qur'an... butt the moste stricking is the delusional conviction thate this subject has that his sandcastle is a smashing victorie against the tidel-waves... you cannot rewrite islam and it's ideology bie ignoring its hermeneitical structure thate gave islam to the world... poor MisterIslam: you're a verie tormented MUSLIM... (see? no "e"... I hoppe you'll now refrainne from being so rude)

and now for the question you were alreadie expection: «a religion thate says: you're forbiden to kill and beat anyone EXCEPT in these cases IS NOTT against violence... a window 1 inche open is nott a closed window»...

where am I wrong in thsi statement? please, MisterIslam, educate us...

Fernando said...

Bie the way... habe I read that MisterIslam is the responsible off some mosque? I can't beliebe: iff someonne so incapable off telling the truth, expressing his feelings withoute offending others, refrainning from being rude and demagocical is at a top muslim degree off teaching others, can we expecte something good from them? I hope the FBI will takke notice off this subject...

finalie: iff your knowledge of Christianity was whatte you learned during the studie you did in Comparative religion in thate muslim school where you studied, it muste be a berie bad one... is it recognized as such bie the US Departement off education? Iff it is , itt shoulde alsso be investigated bie the FBI...

Fernando said...

In saide: «more: never, ever, ever, anie muslim (now I know I was righting this word wrong) thought I was being offensive»... sorrie... Yahya Seymour I was nott forgetting our poor starte: I intended to sai: «more: never, ever, ever, anie muslim (now I know I was righting this word wrong) thought I was being offensive bie writting "muslime"»... no muslim friend off mine around here ever asked to get me red dotted because waal off them could see I was nott ill intentioned with mie difficults in speeling...

Sepher Shalom said...

Shadeed said: "And since you are Heretic Protestants let us see what your early Scholars and Leaders said."

Someone needs to explain to Shadeed what the Protestant belief of Sola Scriptura is all about. I'm not a Protestant, but at least I have respect not to completely ignore what they believe.

nma said...

MrIslamAnswersback,

MrIslamAnswersback said...

Notice people convert to Islam based on intellectual , and logical reason,


yeah right! These days people convert to Islam because they are guillible and duped, and for no other reason. There is nothing intellectual or logical about Islam.

people become Christians based on foolish reasons, like supposedly seeing Crosses in the sky


Many people convert to Christianity because God (the real God, not the Islamic Allah) gives them visions, so it is not a foolish reason.

And Hitler clearly chose Christianity as it fit right in line with the idea of White supremacy since The idea of God being a man and depicted as a blonde haired blue eyed man was perfect for the Aryans. This is why German Christians supported the Nazis and hated the Jews. After all They had the bible as support Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 "Those who say they are Jews are'nt really but are of the Temple of Satan". Or 1 thess 2:14,15 The jews killed Jesus and the prophets, they are not pleasing to God, and contrary to all men".

Seems Hitler really did prefer Christianity.



This is so stupid and you claim people convert to Islam because of intellectual and logical reasons. This is the intellectual and logical reasoning people can expect.

May you are not one of them, but Muslims in general have a favorable opinion about Hitler, who was very tolerant of Muslims.


And Fernandos calling muslims, Muslimes was the insult. Stop acting like you did'nt see his rude insults.



For your information, the Quran's rejecting crucifixion is an insult to Christians. The Muslim claim that Allah is the same as Yehweh is an insult. The Quran's twisting and retelling the Biblical stories is insulting. The Quran's hijacking of the Biblical prophets is yet another insult. And whenever a Muslim says this is wrong or that is wrong in the Bible, it is an insult to us. Muslims' lying and deceiving in order to tout their religion is another insult.

Like Allahs says about the ignorant desert Arabs Quran 9:97 "and the desert Arabs are worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits Allah has revealed to His messenger, and Allah is all knower ,all wise".


Allah said so because Mohammed made Allah to say so. A person can believe whatever he or she chooses to and why should he or she believe in Allah or the Quran just because Mohammed said so or the Quran says so? By the miracles and the Resurrection Jesus showed people that He was from God. What did Mohammed do? He threw some words at people and insisted that they should believe those words. Why should they? All wise all knowing Allah did not know that people need something more convincing than mere words, so Allah can't rightly blame their disbelief. Of course, the gullible believed Mohammed's words but the gullible believed in Nazi doctrines too.

Historian Thomas Arnold says,
"History makes its clear that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam upon the conquered races IS ONE OF THE MOST FANTASTICALLY ABSURD MYTHS THAT WESTERN HISTORIANS & CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES HAVE EVER REPEATED".
( The Preaching of Islam By Sir Thomas W. Arnold)



So? How do you know he and the others you quoted were right and other historians were wrong? Isn't it true that Muslims invaded many countries? Invasions themselves suggest there were forcible conversions. Do you think the Muslim invaders and rulers were peaceful and harmless? If so, why did they invade other countries in the first place?

Fernando said...

epher Shalom saide: «Someone needs to explain to Shadeed what the Protestant belief of Sola Scriptura is all about»... it's nott onlie the protestants thate have the centralitie on the Bible... the Catholiques, for example, againste whate is commonlie believed, do nott follow the tradition acriteqeilie (eben when sometimes it looks like so...): the Bible, as far I can say, has the absolute priority... its whate it's call the hierarchy off truthe... Shadid Lewis: gett your factes streight...

naruto shippuden said...

Thanks Fernando,God willing I'll be postings my comments.Actually,I've seen a lot of debates of Wood and to me he knows what his talking about specially in this topic.I agree with him because I know that Islam is really a violent religion I know it because I was born in a country where Islam is the second-largest religion.And in fact if Wood was debating thins topic in my country and say those statements he said in this debate he should be dead by now.

>>>>>>Announcement<<<<<<<

Hello everyone,If you are going to the debate of White and Ali in NY or know someone,please let me know I really want to see that debate .I'm in Maine,preferably anyone from the east coast close to Maine who can give me a ride,don't worry ill chip in for the expenses.Please let me know....

Semper Paratus said...

Per Sepher's request, and as a convinced Protestant, I happily supply for Shadid's benefit the following from chapter one of the Westminster Confession of Faith:

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.

VI. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


Other statements of a similar sort can be found in the London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the Belgic Confession, the Helvetic Confession, et cetera.

At a time like this, I'll bet Shadid wishes the Qur'an justified that kind of approach to itself. And even if he could get over the hurdle of the Qur'an not justifying such an approach, I'll bet he wishes the Qur'an was clear enough to serve as the sole rule of faith for Muslims. And even if the Qur'an was clear enough without bringing in extra-Qur'anic sources, I'll bet he wishes it was detailed enough to function as a sufficient rule of faith for Muslims.

Shadid, before you mutter something about the Qur'an claiming that it is clear and detailed, note: I don't deny that it makes these claims. However, anyone who has read the Qur'an knows that such claims must be put on the same level as the claim that the sun takes evening dips in a muddy pond. Just like we know the latter is false - I mean, how absurd, everybody knows the Sun doesn't know how to swim; and where would it get a pair of swim trunks that fit, especially at that time of night when all the Bazaar's are closed? (The idea that the sun skinny dips is just too blasphemous to consider, as I am sure even you will grant) - we also know that the former is.

ben malik said...

nma, you know what's hilarious? The fact that many of Lewis' Muslim scholars admit that Islam did spread by the sword and that Muslims like Lewis are too ashamed too admit it!

Check out the following Muslim response - http://islamqa.com/en/ref/43087

It's somewhat long but worth quoting here. If the admins want to quote it or allow one of the bloggers here to do so I think it would be great.

Fernando said...

Thankes for thate link brother Ben malik... we were all noticing your ansence it latter daies, which, we can say, were quitte interesting... Viktor; 3li; Ali; MisterIslam; the Osama and the allwaies foonie Ibn were berie actibe... glade to see you backe...

The Fat Man said...

A few quotes from
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/43087
That benmalik posted.

"Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah in crowds. Hence the hearts of the enemies of Islam are filled with fear of jihad. "

nma said...

ben malik said...


nma, you know what's hilarious? The fact that many of Lewis' Muslim scholars admit that Islam did spread by the sword and that Muslims like Lewis are too ashamed too admit it!



Hello, Ben. Thanks for the link.

They are too ashamed to admit it or afraid that admitting it will hurt their short-term aim of promoting Islam as a peaceful religion!

getrealman said...

I think at this point we can all safely conclude Mr. Lewis is now in hiding. Or, better put, having successfully demolished every argument and all opposition he has now quietly enthroned himself in his very peaceful mosque. A veritable bastion of tranquility, I am altogether certain :-). Anyway, don't expect any further responses from him as I'm sure that none will be forthcoming.

ben malik said...

Fernando, thanks for the kind words. It's good to be able to post again.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Fernando, thanks for the kind words. It's good to be able to post again."

Sam Shamoun (ben malik),

Welcome back. I hope that David Wood was able to tame your mouth for you. It's been nice here so far having dialogues with adults. I hope that your previous childish lies and insults about a Muslim (me and others) got raped in the past or got sexually abused are over. I did not post your garbage on my site's "dumpster section" because I am tired of dealing with your nonsense. I hope that we'll be able to speak nicely to each others.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

David Wood,

You said:

"Shadid said: "And since you are Heretic Protestants let us see what your early Scholars and Leaders said."
Shadid, you obviously have no clue what Christians believe. (But what should we expect from a man who rejected Christianity because his pastor played the saxophone?) Do you think I care at all what Martin Luther said? Who in the world is Martin Luther? Is he our most respected scholar? Not at all. Is he even close? No. He's a guy who (correctly) rebelled against some false teachings and practices. That's it."

My response:

Martin Luther and the Catholic Church who persecuted the Jews throughout the ages until they stopped it only in our current years, and Adolf Hitler and the Nazies and their CHURCHES WERE NOT IGNORANTS OF CHRISTIANITY.
On the contrary, you are the one who lacks a great deal about what the NT says about the Jews, David Wood. Let us look at the following verses:

Acts 18:5-7
5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ.
6 But when the Jews opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility. From now on I will go to the Gentiles."
7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God.

In the Bible, when your blood is on your head, it means that you are to be killed:

Leviticus 20:9
" 'If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.

Leviticus 20:11
" 'If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus 20:13
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

And so on... So, when Paul told the Jews that your blood is on your heads, it means that IF THEY INSIST ON REJECTING JESUS AS THE CHRIST, THEN THEIR BLOOD IS ON THEIR HEAD; killing them is allowed.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

David Wood,

I have added a lot more points and verses that further refute you at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/nt_commands_killing_jews.htm

Have a good day,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

You expect people to believe that Shaul (Paul), a Jew and a Rabbi trained by Gamaliel, taught that that Jews had to be killed?

When he said, "their blood will be on their own heads", he was referring to the fact that he had sufficiently delivered the Gospel message to his fellow countrymen, and the eternal death they would face on Judgment Day was not his responsibility.

We know this quite easily from the context. First, notice who is being spoken to. This is in no way an injunction on future generations to kill anybody. The verse is only about those specific people that Paul preached to, whom rejected the Gospel. It's not about anyone else. Paul would have no warrant to say this about anyone in the future that had yet to be born, as obviously he had not preached the Gospel to them.

Martin Luther was an anti-Semite. Hitler was an anti-Semite. This in no way proves that the Bible, which was written by Semites and is all about the G-d of Israel and the Jewish Messiah, is anti-Semitic. This would be like calling the Quran anti-Arab since the polytheists in Mecca were Arabs, and the Quran condemns them. In point of fact, the Quran calls directly for warfare and killing of the mushrikeen in numerous places. Are we to conclude that this makes the Quran anti-Arab or anti-Semitic?

Fernando said...

Camonne the Osama... you do nott wante us to beliebe Paul was talking to all the Jews?

the Osama... were those small group off jews in Macedonia killed bie Paul or ani other jew thate followed Jesus? Did Paul killed or asked to kill anione after his convertion? Paul did not quote all the entiere OT verses you prnted here... he firmelie onlie spoke off the laste part off them, wantting to say thate the responsability off theirs refusal off recieving the Gospel was, indeed, their falts...

the Osama don't follow the black lighte!!!

Osama Abdallah said...

Guys,

Paul's statement was a quote of the Old Testament, and this statement in the OT is a capital punishment one!

As to what Paul believed or meant, I don't care what he meant. The statement is a very serious one. IT IS AGAIN A CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ONE IN THE OT.

Furthermore, please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/nt_commands_killing_jews.htm to see how Jesus too preached hate in Matthew 7. Jesus abrogated his "love your enemy" message with the enemies being "dogs" and pigs" and don't give them the pearls (of love) in Matthew 7.

Here is the bottom line: The Bible is filled with moody and radical statements that prove it is not Divine.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Now I understand why Sam Shamoun (ben malik) said this to me once on paltalk:

I asked him:

Why are you so mean to us? Aren't you supposed to love your enemy?

Shamoun responsed:

The Bible said do not throw your pearls to the swines lest they trample them under their feed!


The hateful and Nazi-like Sam Shamoun, who wishes all Muslims dead, was only following Jesus' Christ's commands. Isn't it right ben malik? Do you remember this exchange between and you on paltalk?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "As to what Paul believed or meant, I don't care what he meant. The statement is a very serious one.

Osama doesn't care about context, or the intent of communication in the text of the Bible.

Thank you Osama for openly admitting what has been obvious to everyone on this blog for a long time.

Osama said: "Jesus abrogated his "love your enemy" message"

There is no such thing as "abrogation" in the Scriptures of YHWH. This is an Islamic idea, and you can keep it. The rest of your comment is a complete non-Sequitor, and doesn't even deserve a comment.

Osama said: "Here is the bottom line: The Bible is filled with moody and radical statements that prove it is not Divine."

"Moody" and "radical" as defined by who? Osama Abdallah? These are such open and undefined words it makes your accusation completely useless. One person's "moody" is not another's. Try using some words that aren't so subjective that they become useless Osama. I could easily find things in the Quran that myself, and many others would call "moody" and "radical".

Osama Abdallah said...

Matthew 7 (do not give the pearls (of love) to your enemy who is a "dog" and "Pig")

CAME AFTER

Matthew 5 (love your enemies):

http://www.answering-christianity.com/nt_commands_killing_jews.htm


Yes, Matthew 7 abrogated Matthew 5.

Have a good day,
Osama Abdallah

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Yes, Matthew 7 abrogated Matthew 5."

No. Matthew 7 did not abrogate Matthew 5. The concept of "abrogation" is completely foreign to the text of the Bible. Your unqualified assertions are not a form of proof Osama. Secondly, the "pearls" in that verse are not love. And "enemy" is not even used in the text, nor is "swine" synonymous with "enemy".

Do you just sit around and make this stuff up Osama? Or are you actually a brilliant stand-up comedian doing a parody of a Muslim apologist?

The title of your link is a complete joke as well Osama. The "New Testament" was written by Jews. Maybe someone should put up a link to an article titled, "at_tawbah_commands_killing_arabs". It would be significantly more accurate than your crack-pot claims.

naruto shippuden said...

Osama Abdullah,you're either hallucinating or tying to be funny you are interpreting something which you don't even understand.You cited Paul in the book of Acts and concluded that it's allowed in the NT to kill people,granting without accepting that is allowed to kill,can you give us a single verse that says,Paul killed or attempted to kill?And clearly the verses you cited has NOTHING to do with oppression Lewis was trying to say in this debate or fall on any category Lewis mentioned.

It's been nice here so far having dialogues with adults. I hope that your previous childish lies and insults about a Muslim-Osama abdallah


Look who's talking here about being nice,read the propagation materials of Dawah centers in Asia they all contain insult about the bible,st.Paul,Christianity.For instance the booklet,"Was Jesus crucified"? by Ahmed Recalde,Let the bible speak Ahmed Deedat,etc.There books are all contain things that are erroneous,malicious,misleading and lies about Christianity they have been existing long before these debates happened and Not only that but your uztads are attacking Christianity on their radio programs and in different debates your propagators are just acting uncivilized.I can attest to that,I was once invited to a debate between a Muslim preacher and a Seventh Day Adventist apologist.That's why I was really shock to see these debates here in the U.S peacefully done.In other countries Muslims debaters are far different from here.
Osama,before you complain about harsh words about Muslims my advice is tell your propagators first to stop making things up or better tell your complains to the marines!

ben malik said...

Osama you're back after the spanking you took from Nabeel and Wood? And I see you are going to allow Muhammad and yourself to be exposed to public shame and ridicule once again. Man, you are the best tool Christianis have against Islam since whenever you open your mouth you can't help but reveal how nasty Muslims can be, and just how morally and intellectually bankrupt Islam is.

Please keep debating since it will bring more woes and ridicule to Muhammad.

nma said...

Osama said...

Jesus abrogated his "love your enemy" message with the enemies being "dogs" and pigs" and don't give them the pearls (of love) in Matthew 7.



Osama, you bigoted hypocrite and liar! Why do you twist the Biblical verses to fit your defense of your ignoble book? Needless to say, your website is full of BS like this.

If you read carefully, Matthew 7 can also be interpreted as a warning against mass immigration of Muslims into the West.

Fernando said...

The Osama... your lattest comments aboute Paul and Mathew 5 and 7 will sure enter my new web-site thate will be called "An Anthology off Dumbness" (or somethingue likke thate)... the Osama: you'll habe a proeminent place in itt...

Glade you're still willing to poste these comments here in order to everione may be hable to see the stupiditie off your arguments... and glade to admitte you do nott acre aboutte the context of the textes and theirs true interpretationn... as we can find in your own sources:

فقال النبي : اليهود ، ويجب أن يكون جميع القتلى لان ذلك ان شاء الله

Do you recognize this texte? I'm sure you do... then I'll lett you explaine us all whate you think off it...

naruto shippuden said...

I've actually have a question for David.I've seen a lot of debates of different ustads in a different country and they have a distinct style from the debaters here in the U.S.They usually resort to attacking the bible by presenting the so-called contradictions in the bible but here I never heard any Muslim debater used that in any debates I watched on your website specially when the topic is about the bible being the inspired word of God.Do you have any idea,why they use a different approach?

LBBSPOCK said...

Mr Islam

When you speak of Hitler and the SS as Christian, you are confusing Catholicism with Biblical Christianity, they are not the same.

Fernando said...

LBBSPOCK said: «When you speak of Hitler and the SS as Christian, you are confusing Catholicism with Biblical Christianity, they are not the same»...

Well... I woulde say thate some catholiques would say thate they remain fundamentaly biblicaly connected... butt who I'm I to say so?

Never the less, Hitler was nott a true Catholique and never reciebed the backing off the Catholic Churche for his attrocities eben when tried to habe a peacefull relation withe him before the recognition off the full dimention off whate he was intending... as a matter off fact, iff he recieved the backing off some church in Germany it was nott by the Catholique Church, rader another one that published the "Sonntagsblatter" backed by persons like Adolf Stocker, Otto Dibelius and Martin Sasse thate were veementely reprimended by the catholiques...

Are you, LBBSPOCK, trieng to say otherwise or trying to demonise the Catholique Church on this aspecte? Since that's one off the TOP points in the agenda off the muslims in Europe, I woulde habe to say thate you're, like them, totally out off touch... Justte read, please, the text "Mit brennender Sorge"; see also the condamnation off the Nazi regime made bie these catholique bishops and priests: Lichtenberg, Alfons Maria Wachsmann; Josef Müller and, amoung others, Alfre Delp... they were all killed by the regime they dennounced...

The ultimatte source off true for the Catholique Church remains the Holy Bible ans the solid Tradition thate emerges from itt and neither backs the anti-semitism thate during large perioud off the story somme false Christians creatted... Glade thate nowadays the Catholique churche is in the bery front off the fraternal dialogue with the jewish worlde...

Butt I reckon you prefer the fiction thate John Cornwell published... bie the way: his thesis were all completelie denounced...

Fernando said...

LBBSPOCK said: «When you speak of Hitler and the SS as Christian, you are confusing Catholicism with Biblical Christianity, they are not the same»...

Well... I woulde say thate some catholiques would say thate they remain fundamentaly biblicaly connected... butt who I'm I to say so?

Never the less, Hitler was nott a true Catholique and never reciebed the backing off the Catholic Churche for his attrocities eben when tried to habe a peacefull relation withe him before the recognition off the full dimention off whate he was intending... as a matter off fact, iff he recieved the backing off some church in Germany it was nott by the Catholique Church, rader another one that published the "Sonntagsblatter" backed by persons like Adolf Stocker, Otto Dibelius and Martin Sasse thate were veementely reprimended by the catholiques...

Are you, LBBSPOCK, trieng to say otherwise or trying to demonise the Catholique Church on this aspecte? Since that's one off the TOP points in the agenda off the muslims in Europe, I woulde habe to say thate you're, like them, totally out off touch... Justte read, please, the text "Mit brennender Sorge"; see also the condamnation off the Nazi regime made bie these catholique bishops and priests: Lichtenberg, Alfons Maria Wachsmann; Josef Müller and, amoung others, Alfre Delp... they were all killed by the regime they dennounced...

The ultimatte source off true for the Catholique Church remains the Holy Bible ans the solid Tradition thate emerges from itt and neither backs the anti-semitism thate during large perioud off the story somme false Christians creatted... Glade thate nowadays the Catholique churche is in the bery front off the fraternal dialogue with the jewish worlde...

Butt I reckon you prefer the fiction thate John Cornwell published... bie the way: his thesis were all completelie denounced...

LBBSPOCK said...

Fernando

There is plenty of evidence that not only Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic, but also Himmler, Goering, Hess etc. A quote from a German newspaper the day after Hitler "popped off" calls him "the son of the Catholic Church" See the works by Avro Manhattan for starters. The Catholic Church has the same goal as Islam, to destroy the Jew and set up a literal physical kingdom here on this earth. It will never happen!! Israel has and always will be Gods chosen people.

David Wood said...

Lbbspock,

You might want to be a little more careful in your research. Hitler was an atheist (or, at best, he believed in some generic Nietzschean "Will to Power" deity). He had complete contempt for anyone who believed in Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. He said some pro-Catholic things around pro-Catholic people. Those who knew him, however, pointed out that this was only a ruse to dupe people.

If you're going to say that Hitler was a devout Catholic simply because he made some pro-Catholic comments, you'd also have to say that Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson were all devout Christians, since they said pro-Christian things. We know that these men were deists. Like it or not, people say things in public to help them appeal to their listeners.

I'm not a Catholic, and I have no intention of defending Catholicism. But I do have a love of truth, and your claims are simply false.

Sepher Shalom said...

LBBSPOCK,

Let's not get into denominational infighting. The body of The Messiah is not to be divided, and the Adversary loves to see the body attack itself.

Peace, in His name brother/sister.

LBBSPOCK said...

Mr Wood

I greatly appreciate you defending the faith as you do, however I respectfully disagree with your marginalization of these claims. There are a number of books by reliable sources that not only reveal Romes bankrolling of the SS but also of Mohammed himself.

You must keep in mind that alot of the written material that exposes a great deal of these truths are either out of print or have been concealed.

I would challenge you my Christian brother not to be naive to roll of the Papacy in not just the dark ages but in our present day as well.

David Wood said...

I didn't say anything about the papacy. I simply said that Hitler wasn't a "devout Catholic." And that's just a fact.

LBBSPOCK said...

Mr. Wood

Hitler was baptized, and catechized by the Catholic Church and was never excommunicated, which as you well know speaks to the truth of the matter that he must have been in good standing.

David Wood said...

Lbbspock,

Now you're just being silly, and your hatred of the Catholic Church is clouding your intelligence.

My wife was baptized as a Catholic, and catechized. She eventually became an agnostic, and yet she was never excommunicated. So she was still a devout Catholic, even when she stopped believing in God (according to your absurd reasoning)?

Now she's a Protestant. But she was still baptized as a Catholic and catechized, and she has still never been excommunicated. So she's still a devout Catholic, eh?

Just so you know, I'm not going to post any more of your irrational anti-Catholic rambling. There are plenty of sites which would welcome that, but this isn't one of them.

Fernando said...

Lbbspock,

yes: there're manie problems in the Catholique Church (butt where is nott?);

yes: in manie aspects the Catholique Churche aparted itself, with conscience or nott, from the core off the Gospel (butt who has nott?);

yes: manie Catholiques had anti-semitic feelings and actions thate were totallie againste the message off Jesus (butt was thate onlie a Catholique problem?)

so... as I saide: I'm totally glade bie the factt thate all those wrong steps were recognized, asked for forgivness and rectified...

as for your hate to Catholique Church I just have to say thate thate is not a true Christian attitude: iff you studied well the core doctrines you woulde be astonsihed to see thate thay are nott as apart as you mighte think: do your homeworke and start behaving as a true Christian: announce and denounce with facts, nott supossitions or pre-conceptions... I was born in a cultural Catholique countrie and now libe in another one so I have the oportunity to studie it's theologie quite well: the fact someone was baptized in childe in the Catholique Church do not make him a Catholique, and the excomunion is nott whate you think: don't be so naïf!!! Aboutt those "out off print and counceled books" thates juste the expression off a conspiracy theorie argumnet... with thate kind off logique all coulde be saide aboute everyone, and thate's nott the true path...

never the less: glad for your wordes... it allowed me to expresse manie things thate were dorment in mie heart... may God bless you!!!

Zameel said...

See:

http://allahisalmighty.blogspot.com/2009/10/violence-in-judaism-christianity-and.html

jabir said...

why dont u add deedat and zakir naik debates on your site?

Sola_Fide2010 said...

Hello Brothers, I want to thank all you guys who are in apologetics. Especially, you guys in the Muslim community. Christians should be praying for you guys every day because of the great work you do. Thank you guys once again.

Sola_Fide
God Bless

Jabari said...

Shadid said....
Ben Malik

No such teaching exist in Sunni Islam. Its the lying idiot christians who claim we have such a teaching. We dont.

I beg to differ on that one Shadid. No doubtedly you're going to throw out your best commentator (as you have with Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim your most trusted collections of ahadith), but here it goes:

Sura 3:28
Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from God: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But God cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to God.

Ibn Kathir's commentary on this (keep in mind that Ibn Kathir is a Sunni Muslim, not a Shia Muslim):
Except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "Taqiyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''

Whether you want to reject this or not, Taqiyyah is part of Sunni Islam.

Jabari said...

@ Shadid Lewis.....
And if you continue to deny this clear assertion about lying being permitted in Islam here's a hadith to rest my case:

War is deceit.
Sunan Abu Dawood Book 14, Number 2631

And to drive my point home even further:
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a false thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." The Prophet said, "You may say it."
Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369

hauducnguyen said...

Note to all Muslims:

defending the character and actions of Mohammad is a losing cause. if you believe that he is the prophet its fine, but to reason that he is "the ideal human being" is just plain idiotic.

like most things in life, a lie built on a lie and layered on top of another lie is a house of cards.

Trinity325 said...

I have run into Shadid on Paltalk a number of times under a different nic (Trinity325 does not exist on Palalk).

My last chat with Shadid he seemed to force upon Christians a position that we don't even hold to, Overshadowing Mary with a sexual sense and of course saying the Trinity is Three Gods despite what I told him.

Felix Tam said...

This debate was bad. Lewis showed his illogical argument in his second round of rebuttals. He says: "Show me where in the Quran where Allah says those verses (peaceful ones)were abrogated?" and "As to which verses were abrogated its left up to other people's opinion".

I'll grant that argument. I can't show you in the Quran that the peaceful verses were abrogated, but can you show me which violent verses were abrogated too? And if you were to go outside the Quran to show me that (the violent verses were abrogated) I would then turn around and say "As to which verses were abrogated its left up to other people's opinion".

So what we have here is a stalemate, or a symmetry. True, Lewis can make his point and say that Islam promotes peace and tolerance (and only tolerates violence in self defence) and that would be valid. However, I can make my point and say that Islam is violent and intolerant and that too would be valid. After all, since no one can agree on which verse has been abrogated, one cherry pick view of the Quran is just as good as the other.

Therefore the only conclusion that you can make is that Islam is a religion that is AS peaceful AS it is violent. And since these two polar opposite view cannot be reconciled, Islam is self contradictory and can be safely rejected.

ayemox said...

Oh my!

This Shadid guy is very deceptive! He mentions John 18:36 and says.... Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight. Shadid cleverly removes the final words of this verse to twist to look as if Jesus was violent.

The full verse reads... Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not of this world. If My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, THAT I SHOULD NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE JEWS. BUT NOW IS MY KINGDOM NOT FROM HENCE".

Come on! Deleting words in same verse??? Even a 5yrs old will understand what the full verse means but he chose to deceive like his fellow Muslim brothers.