Thursday, October 8, 2009

Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?
David Wood vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi

Opening Statements

Rebuttals and Crossfire

Audience Questions and Conclusions


Anonymous said...

good work david. u won this debate fair and square.

and abdullah, christianity is all abt what jesus said and not what augustine or some1 else said.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

To use the logic of Abdullah al-Andalusi would it be justified for us to attack the Islamic sharia government of Sudan for killing, inslaving and suppression hundreds of thousands of Christians?

Or how about the notorious genocide of Christians in Indonesia in 1999-2000, would muslim really consider it justified if we interacted with military support of the Christian community.

And now we are talking about suppression, are we really correct to rule out Islam a cause for oppression? For example those girls and women who were raped on the battle field by Muhammad's followers, are we really to say that these women were not suppressed?

I am sure that every muslim will have to agree with me here, that Muhammad and his followers in following the guidance of Allah at this particular point engaged in injustice.

Is Abdullah then implying that the religion of Islam is a force that we ought to fight against.

Anonymous said...

one more thing. abdullah said sth like that christians were ought to fight ppl bc of love (4 them). he quoted some christian scholar. needless to say, this is a complete misrepresentation of jesus' teachings. furthermore, i am not sure what love conveys in abdullahs mind, but for us christians (apart from other things) love means that u can say NO. that is love and thats why we say that (christian) god is love. he is indeed, bc he doesnt force any1 to anything. we have been given free will and its up to us if we re gonna accept him or not. we dont kill ppl who leave christianity bc they re allowed to say no. u cannot just put love and fight in 1 sentence and then label christians that they lead wars out of love. this is completely wrong. i think that some1 should read 1 corinthians 13 once again..

Fernando said...

Brother Hogan saide «Or how about the notorious genocide of Christians in Indonesia in 1999-2000»...

are you refferring to East-Timor? Since it's INVASION of this small country, Indonesia made enourmous efforts to islamize it: deportations, inmigration, persecutions, executions, etc... thousands off people desapeared there withe the international comunity closing it's eys not to enfuriante the "major muslim country"...

Radical Moderate said...

Listing to the opening so far. The muslim wearing his best Luke Sky Walker outfit says "Islam has a higher opinion of woman"

Islam says "Your wives are a TILTH to you so enter them how ever you please"

The quran allows Husbands that if "They fear disoloyalty first Admonish them, then deny them sex, and the finaly to beat them"

In a islamic court of law it takes two woman to equal the testimony of a man.

Now lets look at what the New Testment says on woman and wives.

1 Cor 7:3-5
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."

So in this verse we see a few things.

1. Husabands and Wives are to fullfill their marital duties to one another
2.The Husbands body does not belong to him alone but belongs to the wive as well, and likewise the Wives Body does not belong to her alone but to the husanand.
3. Finaly Husabands and wives are not to deprive themselves of each other physicaly but only for a time to devout to prayer.

So in Christ a wife is not just a Tilth, and a wive has the same right to the husbands body as the husband does to hers. Making a wife a equal partner in the physical relationship. And finaly we see that neither are to deprive each other out of punishment but only out devotion to prayer and only for a little while so neither will be tempted by the devil.

Epheisians 5
We read taht Husbands are to love their wives as Chrsit loved the church. "26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless." We read that Husbands are to love their wives as they love their own body.

In Col 3:19 we read "19Husbands, love your wives and do not be HARSH with them. "

Contrast this with the Quran, notice husbands are not to admonish their wives, deprive them of physical affection, or even beat them. WE ARE NOT TO BE HARSH.

Finaly 1 Peter 3:7
"7Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

Notice Husbands are to be considerate, and treat wives with respect, and the wife is a weaker PARTNER.

Just some food for thought

minoria said...

Interesting debate.And thank you Davd for clearing up my fuzziness about the Word of God issue.It seems the sheikh thought you meant word of God=message of God or maybe even Koran.

A few words here.In ROM Paul tells us you don't need supernatural revelation to know what God wants.He,of course,meant the basic thing:the Golden Rule.It is true,you find it in Hinduism,Greek-Roman philosophers,Confucius,etc.

I think AUGUSTINE had that in mind when he enunciated the JUST WAR


It makes sense.If an army is killing the people in your city then you want one who can stop them to do it.By force if necesarry.


But before it is good Bfoali is still reading us,I had thought he had left.In RWANDA 800,000 people were killed in ONLY 100 DAYS.Less than 3.5 months.

In 1971 Pakistani soldiers killed 3 MILLION Bangladeshis in ONLY 10 MONTHS,and raped 250,000 women.


Because of that the French government has enunciated the idea of INGERENCE(it means to get into,get involved).That is,when HUMAN RIGHTS are so grossly violated in a country then NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY is to be ignored by the word.Invasion is jusutfied,military action.Or Just War as Augustine would say.

Jesus never said "don't kill".He said "Do to others as you..."He leaves it up to us and our conscience.But he was in favor of trying to solve things first peacefully.Remember Jesus was God,the same of the OT.And in the OT God did other execution.

minoria said...

I always listen to the debates several times to see what I can get.I would like to add about Christian thinking and war the view of FRANCISCO DE VITORIA (1486-1546)

He is considered the founder of INTERNATIONAL LAW.In his time Spain was conquering ALOT of territory in America.He was a Dominican priest who wrote about the question:"Was Spain as a Christian nation doing the right thing?"

He concluded that Spain was not justified in taking the lands of the natives,nor was it justified in general at all.The only exception he granted was that it was justified if the foreign nation impeded the preaching of the gospel.


He was even more extreme and rejected even that exception and was also for literally RETURNING the lands back to the natives.That the Spaniards should leave.Remember also that he was against slavery:Indian and African.

I believe these 2 thinkers were inspired by the Golden Rule.And they were MAJOR thinkers in European history.

leviMichealathan said...


plz give us the number ONE reason, and be SPECIFIC, why islam is true?

a Christian response is easy: the resurrection of Jesus.

in your response, plz don't say anything about the Bible or Christianity.

your reason must be OBJECTIVE in the sense that if someone rejects your reason, it can only be based on philosophical grounds-not on reason, logic and evidence, i.e. the things that human beings require to believe in something so important like salvation.

moreover, the evidence for your reason must be so overwhelming that, to reject it will require more faith.

Nazam said...

Hi David & Nabeel,

do you plan to post the videos of your vist to Hyde Park Speakers Corner?

Radical Moderate said...

Oh the Inconsitency's. In Abdullahs Rebuttle he goes on a tirade how christians are to fight just wars, to end oppressesion. He even says words the affect of "Do you only love your own citizens, no you should love all those who are being oppressed." He then quotes a few Christian philosophers saying that wars should be fought against those who suppress the knowlege of the trinity.

Then he goes on about Iraq and Afganistan and how christians solderis should be ashamed. But wait Abdullah wasnt the Taliban oppressing the spreading of Christianity and oppressing the doctrine of the trinity, wasnt Saddam opressing his own people Shia MUSLIMS.

So Abdullah according to your standards why should christian solderis be ashamed of what they are doing in Iraq and Afganistan. LOL.

faktb said...

Abdullah, with respect, you have imposed the standards of Islam onto Christianity. This is why your presentation was ineffective and lacked substance.

Islam is a religion of scholars, mainly because the meaning of large quantities of the Quran is ambiguous.

However in Christianity, the Bible is by and large clear in its messages. Thus the need for scholars has never been as great.

Next time, please try to interpret the bible using its own context and genres which are plentifully provided (unlike for the Quran).

Nakdimon said...

Oh man, David reigned supreme in this debate.

The irony is that Andalusi fed his own scholars to the sharks and was constantly complaining that these scholars were inaccurate. Yet look at what the main substance of his argumentation is Christian scholars that hold absolutely NO authority to Sola Scriptura Christians. Even not to Sola Ecclessia Christians!

I think this topic should not be debated anymore. The case for Christianity's peaceful tenants is a complete clear cut case and speaks for itself when presented accutately.


Nakdimon said...

Good observation Fat Man.

Islam NEEDS to be inconsistent, since without inconsistency, it cannot stand.


Yahya Snow said...

Re: Shamoun's views on the Gospel of John (1:19-21) and Muhammed.

I have just produced an article and a youtube video response countering Shamoun's claims.

The article and video response highlight the reasons why Shamoun's argumentation is viewed to be unconvincing.

The link to the youtube video (which subsequently contains a link to the article):

The article is on my blog, just click on my username. Thanks



PS..I hope to post the vid as a response to the video on the acts17ap. youtube channel...please allow it as a response so the viewers can have a fuller picture.

May Allah guide us all. Ameen

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
minoria said...

Guys,contrary to stereotype it is not just Christians who are worried about the threat of mainstream Islam.There are liberal Muslims who are no threat,but MAINSTREAM ISLAM(that of the Muslim heartland) is a threat to non-Muslims.


In the West Christians are a minority,even in the US.But I am surprised by the quantity of PROMINENT atheists who are against mainstream Islam.Because mainstream Islam is against the human rights of us non-Muslims.

There is RICHARD DAWKINGS of the UK,PAT CONDELL of the UK(he is in youtube).

MICHEL ONFRAY,the leading philospher of France.The late ORIANA FALLACI of Italy.

SAM HARRIS of the US.The famous CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS,of the UK.Also M.D.MURDOCH(pen name ACHARYA S).She is now writing for for her I am not sure if she is an atheist,but she is no Christian.She thinks Jesus never existed.

GEERT WILDERS of Holland,another atheist.PIM FORTUYN,another atheist,and Dutch politician,who was assasinated,was against mainstream Islam.In fact,for all those people mainstream Islam IS Islam,true Islam.The same one that has existed for 1,400 years.

Dk said...


I took the time to see the youtube clip and read your article..(as painful as it was)

Honestly I don't see why Sam would even bother to reply.

Maybe it's a slight improvement from the skill level of Osama and Zaatari, but it's pain stakenly long and filled with error after error. I would actually bang my head against the wall before wasting my time like that again, that's how painful it was.

I'm so pissed off I just wasted 20 minutes of my life.

Sorry I apologise, I actually don't think i've even seen an article by Osama with so many errors as your article has! wow i'm actually complimenting Osama.

Michelle Qureshi said...


Probably. We haven't had a chance to go over that footage yet, but when we do, we'll probably put it up.

Good to hear from you, my friend! Sincerely,

minoria said...

For my part I have not seen the video but I have read the article on his blog,which must be the same thing.


JOHN 1:45 was cited:"Jesus of Nazareth,son of Joseph."One guy said that to another guy.

Did he think Jesus was the bioogical son of Joseph?Of course.Nobody will deny it.That doesn't mean Jesus was,only what was thought.It was normal.


In JUDAISM it has been the belief that God regularly raises up JEWISH prophets for the Jewish people.Jeremiah was the prophet of the Jews in his time,Isaiah in his,etc.


Again,in JUDAISM,it has always been the belief that the prophets are JEWISH.They never think it can be from CHINA,or INDIA or RUSSIA.


PAUL writes of the existence of PROPHETS among the Christians.SO?

So in CHRISTIANITY(not JUDAISM)there is the belief a PROPHET can be CHINESE or INDIAN or RUSSIAN for us Christians.


So the PHARISEES and LEVITES who are JEWISH TEACHERS 100% meant a JEWISH prophet by the phrase "the prophet."

Did they mean the "prophet like Moses?"I don't know.The text says no more,to claim it 100% is an ASSUMPTION.The text never says "prophet like Moses",only "the prophet".

minoria said...


No problem.Again,in JUDAISM,there is the belief that God regularly raises up JEWISH prophets for his Jewish people.

So by "the prophet" they meant "the prophet of the Jews for this time period,like Jeremiah was the prophet for his time,Daniel for his own time,etc."


In JOHN 1:45 Philip tells Nathaneal that Jesus was the son of Joseph.In JUDAISM there is no idea of a virgin birth for ANY prophet.Of course Philip,a JEW,meant he thought Jesus had a biological father.

So the Pharisees and Levites,JEWS,and ALL the Jews in every time period(unless one can show DOCUMENTS to the contrary)ALWAYS expected a JEWISH "the prophet."

How can the words "the prophet" be a REFERENCE to Mohammed,an Arab,if those who were saying meant this:

"We are making REFERENCE to the JEWISH prophet who comes in every time period to guide the Jews."


Of course not,it did NOT have to be said.It was obvious to all.They would never have said to a GREEK or ROMAN or EGYPTIAN "are you the prophet?"


Again,it only says "the prophet",NOT "the prophet like Moses".To say they meant THAT is a Muslim ASSUMPTION.Muslims can NOT prove the Jewish teachers meant it like that.So that eliminates any possibility of Mohammed being sandwiched in there.

Anthony Rogers said...


Since you are duplicating your commercial about your "John 1:19-21" response(s) in several unrelated threads, I thought I would duplicate mine here as well.

********duplicate response********


I must say, I really didn't think you had it in you. As I am sure you can see now, it can be very satisfying to see a project through to the end. I hope you won't deny yourself that pleasure again, and that we can expect to see you be as diligent to follow through on your other committments.

All that aside, I just thought I would chime in to let you know: don't bask in the glory for too long; I have it on good authority that a refutation of what you wrote is already in the works.

May the Lord Jesus, the Prophet, Priest, and King of His church, and the only Savior of Sinners, enlighten your mind to receive the truth.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...


I agree with Dk, your youtube presentation, was a complete waste of time.

Yahya Snow said...


No need to be disrespectful my friend.

Also, you claim I performed numerous errors yet you fail to highlight any of these, perhaps you just believe I made errors as I am a Muslim...give the work a chance and stop being so critically pre-programmed to any work that counters the Christian's (Shamoun in this case) work, especially if it is from a Muslim

Be object and please do not wait for somebody else to think for you, do your own thinking...perhaps this Muslim could be correct? :)

Also, as you may have noted,in the article I did not argue against christianity but against shamoun's views on the biblical text which were unfounded views.


I posted it on the initial thread which is not as visible now as it is old, thus i also posted it on this thread as it is the most visible thread (ie tip of the page)...I would hardly want the work to go unnoticed by Shamoun..would I? Si it is unfair to accuse me of duplicating it in "several threads"...two is not several..and I have explained my thinking behind it...please retract your allegation..Thanks :)

Btw... I left you a message on the old thread..please post a link to your qs...thanks, preferably on the latest thread and the thread in question...just like I did.


May Allah guide us and help us all. Ameen

Unknown said...

The Nakdimon post-debate comment template:

Oh man, (insert name of Christian speaker), you really smashed (insert name of Muslim speaker)in this debate, nice work, love all your debates!

(section 2: Insert your responses to all points that you think were not adequately responded to by the Christian speaker)

Nakdimon said...

oh man Yahya, give it up already. Sam refuted it. You make claims based on the expectation of Jews. therefore if they EXPECTED a JEWISH prophet, Muhammad is disqualified. Furthermore, the Jews identified Yeshua as that PROPHET in John 6:14 and John 7:40. Why you dismiss that? Because is your book the prophet and the Christ MUST be two different persons, even if Yeshua is identified as BOTH. The jig is up. throw in the towel.


Fernando said...

Yahya Sanow... please take this advice from someone who deeply loves you: forget being an muslim apologist... why do not dedicate your time to gardening? Your article is going to the #3 spot in all time's worst papers about Chsrianiny and islam... jsut behing Nahdir Ahmed's paper on the fact tahte ants do erally speak and Shadir Lewis' one on why playiong saxophone is against God...

Nakdimon said...

Abdullah, you forgot the reason. Put a reason why I think what I say. That is the different between my "templates" and Muslim templates. I actually say why the debate was good. Muslims just say "GREAT JOB AKHI (Muslim debater's name), MASHALLAH! HAVENT SEEN THE DEBATE, BUT YOU SMASHED (the christian debater's name), AKHI!"

So please save the drama. Check what is wrong with my assessments and then bother to get back at me.


MuslimPhantom said...

Brother Abdullad: once again you did a wonderful job destroying all the attempts to say that christianity is not a violent religion as we all know it is: christianity destroyed entire civilizations, peoples, countries, religions and so on just because in the corrupted bible it follows it is said to “baptize all the world”. As brother Osama Abdallah said: Islam is the only way to World peace: outside Islam there is not peace anywhere. Islam is the way, the only way to World peace. As I said: good job brother Abdullah: you’re one of the top Muslim debaters in the World and should not give any importance to the words full of hate that these “love loving” christians commentators place in this devilish and diabolical blog.

gsan said...


Since Nakdimon omitted section 2 of his (supposed) post-debate template, mustn't that mean that he thinks David responded adequately to all the points you brought forth? And wouldn't that imply that his assessement is true (i.e. he believes what he wrote), contrary to what you imply?

I would really like to hear from you an explanation to the point Nakdimon raised. Namely, how do you reconcile your rejection to define islam from its authoritative sources while demanding to define christianity from sources no christians regard as authoritavie.

Anthony Rogers said...

Yahya said: Si it is unfair to accuse me of duplicating it in "several threads"...two is not several

No, two is not several, but it does amount to "duplicating".

sam said...

muslim phantom

open ur eyes and c wuts happening in the world. suicide bombing terrorism, taliban etc. dont be going around saying christians r destroying the world. y dont u join yahya snow and plant some flowers.

minoria said...

To answer MuslimPhantom:

He said Christianity has destroyed civilizations.I assume he means PAUL's religion.I don't think he means JESUS is RESPONSIBLE.Because if he does mean it is because of Jesus,then Jesus was not a prophet.Then why is he a prophet in the Koran?Why would Allah consider as prophet a man who INFLUENCE and IDEAS led to destruction?

But PAUL said several times "love your neighbor like yourself".So not even he can be blamed.

Nakdimon said...

Actually, Abdullah. If you read carefully, I posted my response to your nonsensical assertions in the Islam debate BEFORE I listened to the rebuttals of David and Nabeel. If you even bothered to read anything I said in my assessment of your claims, it would be clear that I rebutted certain points the way that they also rebutted them in their rebuttal period. This shows that I was not making comments to things they havent responded adequately to. And the fact that my telling them that they did a great job comes AFTER my assessment of your claims is even more evidence that FIRST wrote my comments before I listened to their rebuttal period.


Unknown said...

"And the fact that my telling them that they did a great job comes AFTER my assessment of your claims is even more evidence that I FIRST wrote my comments before I listened to their rebuttal period."


So you are telling me, that you actually praised David and Nabeel's performance against me BEFORE you had even heard their rebuttals?! - Nice one 'Nak', you've just proved my point about the 'post-debate template'! Thanks - and beautifully said too :)

Anonymous said...

MuslimPhantom said...
Brother Abdullad: once again you did a wonderful job destroying all the attempts to say that christianity is not a violent religion as we all know it is: christianity destroyed entire civilizations, peoples, countries, religions and so on just because in the corrupted bible it follows it is said to “baptize all the world”. As brother Osama Abdallah said: Islam is the only way to World peace: outside Islam there is not peace anywhere. Islam is the way, the only way to World peace. As I said: good job brother Abdullah: you’re one of the top Muslim debaters in the World and should not give any importance to the words full of hate that these “love loving” christians commentators place in this devilish and diabolical blog.

Haha you are one to talk Muslims did the entirely the same thing when they invaded the Byzantine empire, the seasoned empire, Spain , France, Sicily, southern Italy, Rome (they sacked it), Greece, , Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania, Austria, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria the list goes on please so do not complain about Christian colonization, Muslims were doing it a lot earlier.

All your comments show is that you dont know about your own history as one Muslim warlord tamerlane founder of the timurd dynasty massacred 17 million people so what right do you have to hypocritically complain about Christian history? None!

MuslimPhantom said...

In Hoc Signo Vinces said: "Haha"... haha to you to, The Fat Man...

Unknown said...

Oh btw everyone, has anyone noticed how many CHRISTIANS fired questions at David Wood instead of me?

David got more questions from Christians then I did!! It got so bad, that the moderator had to ask if anyone had questions for me! The Christians in the audience that day were ORTHODOX (well, Protestant), and they agreed more with me than with David. I guess my 'argument from orthodoxy' worked far better than I expected - so much so, the debate sounded like a intra-faith debate between two christian positions, rather than a inter-faith debate between a Christian and an outsider!

For my next christian debate, I'll take on Calvinist James White, playing devils advocate as an Arminian! ;)

Anthony Rogers said...


Just debate James as a Muslim; that way you won't need to play devil's advocate.

Nazam said...

Sorry about the late reply but same here Nabeel. Hope you enjoyed the Ambala sweets.


well done bro david, your presentation is clear with solid argument n references and you keep focus on topic base on bible only.

I gave a bro abdullah a credit for his appearance to discuss about this topic which from my opinion this topic is not easy for muslim brother to discuss or let me say to challenge if christianity a religion of peace or not.

in Q n A bro abdullah say there is not question for him that every christian in audience fire a question for david, well in case if people not asking u a question there could be couple thing :

1. the audience don't understood what is your presentation ?
2. They don't care at all what u said
3. maybe your presentation not base on strong / solid references to backup your argument or statement, even if any could be weak or irrelevant to argument.

while for bro david there was a lot of question, in my opinion that's good since it's related with bro david presentation. why ? 'cause they want to sharpen their knowledge n understanding more, i guess that is one of the beauty of the christianity which they could ask or debate their own religion or belief among each other.

someone said about baptized all men into the name of father son n holy spirit, what wrong with that ? is it gospel meant good news, moreover Jesus told his pupils if they enter the house n they are not accepted that gospel then they should left and ..... the dust from their foot / sandal (correct me if i'm wrong) ;) so that order from jesus is for all mankind, if you accepted then it's a glory for God but if not well it's your choice n right (no blood spilled). while in islam history from what i read n heard, the spreading of islam is with force with the term accepted or die, tell me then is that a love or threat.

i don't know it is just me or others can see it, in this debate bro abdullah it seems avoid to confront or refute every verse bro david presented, instead bro abdullah seek explanation from other references which is irrelevant at all (i.e Augustine ..).
clearly that most muslim brother don't understood what the exactly behind the story for every passages or the key point in that case, when you just picked one or two verses without read the whole chapter it would be mislead by interpret that verse by yourself without knowing what exactly it meant. probably it came from the way muslim brother try to understand koran which can't stand alone so still need hadith n sunnah to explain what really meaning in Koran. while in the bible i guess it tell christian so clear messages that no need other books to explain what it is.

oh yeah, in debate like this i think bro abdullah should separate which one is state and religion, we could not mixed state affair with our salvation, jesus teach that very clear. if we can't separate those then we couldn't called it religion but state itself, 'cause clearly enough to me that religion is completely different with state.

well in all i personally give thank to bro abdullah for his presentation n rebuttal which make me understood how my muslim brother view n think in this topic so it's would drive me or christians in general to explore their belief more deeper not only by brain but also by heart like Lord Jesus taught

GOD bless U all