Sunday, October 4, 2009

"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" Abdullah Andalusi and Yahya Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood





Unknown said...

I would like to address a few things of the first fifteen minutes of video two, the first rebuttal by Andalusi.

The beginning points condemning Christianity illustrate a clear example of tu quo. This is clear moral relativism fallacy to get off the topic of whether or not Islam is peaceful [or violent for that matter].

I thought the debate was titled "Is Islam a religion of peace?".

So then on to 9:29 he goes next. Apparently "no interest" banking abrogated the prescription for muslims to fight all non-muslims found in 9:29. Where is this guy coming from? I don't think he seems very prepared for the truth about Islamic texts and teachings. This guy seems like he does not know his religion well or practices taqiyya since he is dancing around the primary text and scholarship [and actions] within the Islamic community for the past 1400 years.

Then we see some more tu quo while ending this rant with the phrase
"if you condemn Muhammad, you condemn Jesus". Actually Jesus would have condemned Muhammad.

Funny how 7:157 states Muhammad saw himself in the Gospel, yet the only references in the Gospel refer to Muhammad as a false prophet.

Now back to his rebuttal.

He seems to agree that islam should concur land and people indefinitely within the texts and sources. That does not illustrate how Islam is peaceful at all or address anything stated by David and Nabeel.

Now, this next statement really hit the nail on the head. Andalusi calls out his "Jewish friend" in the audience who would agree that killing one person is a terrible injustice against mankind. He is referring to 5:32 of the qur'an. This is the part of where I was reminded by Obama's Cairo speech since he ironically stated the same verse as proof of the "Islam is peace" [deceptive] concept.

Now when we accurately look at this verse, we can find that this verse was actually from an earlier jewish text.

Thanks to Dr. Bostom naming Mishnah, IV Division 5 as the original text of this verse.

So I agree that his "Jewish friend" would agree with him since he is quoting a Jewish text that was recycled by Muhammad for the qur'an.

Why did Andalusi not read 5:33, the following verse, which then talks about murdering and torturing any "enemy of Allah"?

He then goes off on a tangent about non-muslims can not run a sharia society. Another tangent that does not address the topic or anything stated by David or Nabeel.

He then again follows up with, surprise, tu quo about Christianity.

"check your sources" is a favorite statement, yet he doesn't seem to check his, or point out where David or Nabeel went wrong in checking theirs.

I will now finish watching the video to see David and Nabeel's 15 minutes of rebuttals.

mkvine said...

Great debate, good job Nabeel and David, May God bless you both and continue to help you in your efforts on your ministry to Muslims. By the way, is there a reason why Yahya Seymour didn't say anything during most of the debate?

minoria said...

I have not heard the whole thing but like 50%.One thing that struck me was that Andalusi spoke against ISLAMOPHOBIA.A short comment by him only.

Later on in the debate he said the Koranic doctrine of TAQIYA is only when a Muslim is in PHYSICAL danger of losing his life(he used the example of a gun at your head).


I have said this before and I repeat that to my knowledge all Muslim organizations in the West and all Muslim intellectuals always say they are against a euphemism invented by them that goes by the name of "Islamophobia".It literally means "irrational fear of Islam".


But the way they use it it means they are against any critique of Mohammed and the Koran (IDEAS in other words,Islam)PLUS discrimination/persecution of those who believe in Islam(Muslims,real people).


If a woman is fired or not hired for wearing the hijab it is "Islamophobia".That is INCORRECT.Islam is not a person,but ideas.In that case it is anti-Muslim(a person)discrimination(or "Muslimophobia").


So those Muslim people who use the word Islamophobia to includes acts against Muslims are being ignorant or deceptive.Again Islam is not a person so Islamophobia is in no way a crime.

I find it hard to believe that after all these years all those Muslim organizations that are always using the word in such an INCORRECT way have not realized their semantic error.I believe they have,but they intentionally continue the error,the deception,and that is TAQIYA.

As you can see they understand TAQIYA(by their actions)as being more than "only if your life is in danger".Their actions show they understand it more than that.Since they always use a word(Islamophobia)in a WRONG semantic way in order to silence non-Muslims,trying to get them punished:fines,censorship,jail.Unfortunately many Western journalists can not see the semantic misuse.

MItche said...

hewn Mohammad delivered his more peaceful Meccan revelations when he was out numbered in contrast to his more violent revelations from when he wa in medina, i think its very telling and very evident of their human origins.

its completely absurd to believe you have eternal tablets in heaven that seem to be extremely convenient in justifying Mohammad's sexual and violent behavior.

Fernando said...

newtotruth... glad to see you arounde here... yes: I do agree withe your comments...

*** *** ***

brother minoria... yes: you habe been saying the cleare difference between muslinphobia and islamophobia... and thates absolutelly needed... I woulde, neber the less make another distinction: "phobos" in greek does not only mean "irrational fear", but also "rational fear"... therefore I woulde say thate there are a irrational islamophobia and a rational one...

the first woulde be based on misconceptions and false assumptions: something like an ideological fear without true knowledge off is "out there": just built one "ear saying": «I do not like jipsis because they were black clodes and thate is dangerous»

the second one is a knowledged fear based on true understanding off islam as an ideology in itselff: «I habe fear in going in thate elevator with someone who has saide he woulde kill me iff I do not follow is pathe»...

I do not know iff you woulde agree withe me, butt I do think tahte this distinction may also be fundamentall...

Fernando said...

Just two comments aboutte our good muslims debatters:

1) Andalusi did not appeared with his Star Wars costume... too sad: I really loved the outfit...

2) I've havoide seeing John Seymour in order not to see the evident aboutte his personality...

Tribulation Force said...

This debate was more of a slow and painful death of Islam.

I have to say that either Andalusi is one of the worst debaters in the world, or there was simply not credible answer to the arguments.

I like to think the later is more plausible.

Anyway, I think this would be worth broadcasting on a television channel; at least this is something the world needs to hear.

Nakdimon said...

Andalusi goes into the offense immediately in his opening statement: Ask the Jews, they were commanded to go to war! What a pathetic way to start! Jews weren’t told to fight everyone who didn’t accept Moses and the Torah. Muhammad was told this, according to his own words. Now what about the question if this came from God. Well, first you should ask yourself why God would command such a thing seeing that was never the way He acted in history. Second, you have to prove first that this comes from God. Third, the reason WHY they should go and fight those nations was given clearly by God: because they defiled the land with their sins and God wanted to replace them with His people. In other words: it was for a specific time, for a specific reason directed to specific nations in a specific region.

The he mentions Romans 13. I have read it again and really cant see what he wants to say. What is it about Romans 13 that he tries to appeal to. Maybe a little specification wont hurt.

Then he uses the term “Islamophobia”. This nonsensical term should be banned from all mouths. There is no such thing as Islamophobia and it is quite telling that this term is used so loosely to the point that any critical tone about Islam is labelled Islamophobia. If anything the Quran and Muslims suffer from kaafirophobia. Everything that the kaafir stands for, no matter how noble, is BAD just because he is a kaafir, especially when it’s a Jew. Since Abdullah doesn’t elaborate on it, I wont bother to do so either.

Then he goes on to complain about demonization of minority groups. PLEASE spare me the drama. If any religion is notorious for demonizing those that don’t believe as they do, it must be Islam. But since Abdullah doesn’t bother to elaborate on it, I wont bother to do so either.

Then he goes on to try to act intellectual by trying to define the word “of” in the phrase “religion of peace” by dictionary definition. Everyone knows that the phrase “religion of peace” is to mean if the tenants of the religion are peaceful towards all kinds of people regardless background or creed. Or are the tenants of the religion only peaceful to a certain extend in that if you don’t belong to that particular religion, you are to be treated less peacefully or even hostile by those that do belong to your religious group. In that regard Islam CLEARLY fails! It’s tenants towards non-Muslims are harsh and distinct from when you are a Muslim, especially when you are an atheist. So all the scriptures he quoted from the Tenach are completely useless. Including his quote from Leviticus 26, which is the chapter where God summons up the blessings and the curses for obedience and disobedience. These verses have nothing to do with how Jews are to treat people that don’t believe as they do. It merely says that when they are obedient to God, God will lift them up above all nations, they will be the most prosperous, no one will be able to scare them or pursue them, but they will pursue their enemies. Not that they will be the ones going out to attack other nations, but that they will be the strongest over all their enemies. Read the whole chapter instead of taking a few verses and run with them to make them say what they don’t.

Listening on…

minoria said...

Hello Fernando:

Thank you again for the input or retroalimentation,as it is also called.I did not know PHOBIA also had the meaning of rational fear.Interesting.And most non-Muslims use the word Islamophobia is an incorrect way also,through ignorance.I also did not know what it really implied till I read an explanation.


DAN BARKER is an ATHEIST,ex-Christian minister,who writes for and has debated MICHAEL LICONA on the resurrection.

In a debate with DINESH D'SOUZA(which you can see in youtube)he asked him that if God told him to kill Dan Barker then would he do it?


DINESH told him that that was easy.He said that if he was praying and he heard a distinct voice say "Go kill DAN BARKER" then he would think about what is written in the NT.He said that we have the message of God in the NT.There it says things like "love your enemies" and so on.

And he said he also believes in the existence of bad spirits.So if the message of a spirit goes against the teaching of the NT then it can not be from God.He would not kill Dan Barker.

Anonymous said...

i watched the whole debate. it was very interesting indeed. i wonder why yahya spoke only 2 words. david and nabeel were a great team as always. their opening statement was 10 times better than the muslim one. i still dont get why one has to always apologise to muslims 4 using their own sources!? i mean, the ppl in the audience were noding their heads when david and nabeel were quoting quran and islamic sources. come on, its not as if they cited mein kampf, so muslims felt so surprised. andalusi should work on his manners, bc he looks histerical with all his movements from time to time. his gem was that jihad was abt establishing justice. i almost fell off my chair bc of laughing. still, i dont find him a bad apologist. and when he said that jesus was also quilty bc ppl crucified him, on account of critic of pharisees and saducees. hmm, jesus cannot be compared to muhammad. i mean jesus didnt surround himself with a bunch of violent ppl and then started terrorizing ppl around him. his mission was different from the mister 1/5-of-the-booty goes to me. not to mention that all jesus' words were accompanied by his deeds and actions. very moral ones. ... ...

guys, good luck with ur further debates.

mkvine said...

The funniest thing I heard in the debate is when Andalusi responded to Nabeel's argument that Muhammad struck Aysha and caused her pain. His best response was "It was an accident, accidents happen...." LOL Yeah, the mafia kills people all the time and say accidents happen. I really couldn't stop laughing at that point.

Radical Moderate said...

Just got done listing to the openning statements. David and Nabeel were a well oiled machine. Both complementing each other and neither speaking over the other. Good job.

Now to the Muslim. Once again we see muslims completly misrepresenting the Christian Text. Andalusi reference Romans 13and says that Christians can oppress when in power.

The book of Romans is writtin by Paul to the Church at Rome. During this time Christians were a persecuted minority comprised mostly of slaves and poor freemen. Romans 13 commands christians to "submit to the governing authorities" the governing authorites were the PAGAN ROMANS, not Christians. How the muslimm can conclude that this chapter is telling christians that "YES WE CAN" oppress others when Christains are in power is beyond me.

Secondly Andalusi uses the greatest weapon in the Jihad arsenal. He appeals to our humanity and compasion, when he quotes Nabeel and then says that Nabeels statement can lead to persecution of muslims.

So the muslim is afraid that muslims will be persecuted living in the west. When some muslims run around blowing up trains and busses, while they fly planes into buildings, while some muslims download bomb making instructions and then go out and buy the materials to make said bomb. While some muslims drive trucks that they believe are ladden with explosives up to Federal buildings and attempt to detonate said explosives. While some muslims riot in the streets attacking the police. While some muslism carry signs saying "The real holocaust is comming" and "Behead all infidels" While some muslims wish to over throw or replace the governments of there adoptive countries with Sharia Islamic law. Muslims are doing all these things in the west and this muslim is afraid that Nabeels statment will cause relegious persecution of the muslim minority.

OH PLEASE Andalusi and any other "Peacful muslim" if you are worried about the comming wrath of the free world then I sugjest you tell these muslims who are doing these things that they are not practicing Islam.

Radical Moderate said...

Am I the only one concerend that another peacful muslim is going to a country that supports terrorist organizations to study islam.

I wonder how peaceful Yahya will be when he returns from the madrassa after learning such advanced islamic topics as how to match your bomb belt with the your shoes.

Yahya if you could give me a shout out in your Video tape when your return I would consider it a honor. Just a little somehting like "This ones for you Fatman" or maybe "I will be thinking of you Fatman" nothing eleborate just something to show you care. :)

Radical Moderate said...

Everyone watch the closing statments begging at time marker 41min. Look at the facial expressions of yahya and how he almost gets slapped a few times by Andalusi. I know it has nothign to do with the debate, Andalusi is just passionate. But it's to funny. Yahya almost has to block one blow.

minoria said...

I have heard more of the debate and I heard the part where a Jewish man says in effect that the part of the gospels that have Jesus being tried during the Passover festival makes the gospels loose all validity.

I think when we know more of the trial it is realistic.The SANHEDRIN was made up of 71 members.It had 2 groups,the SADDUCEES and the PHARISEES.The Pharisees believed in the ORAL LAW,the others didn't.

Around 200 AD the Oral law was finally written down.It has a part on trial procedures.From there we know that according to the Oral law Jesus' trial was illegal.


But scholars say that at the time of Jesus the SADDUCEES(who did not believe in the Oral law) were the DOMINANT group in the Sanhedrin.So THEY had no scruples about having a trial in the Passover festival.


And then the High Priest Ananias in Josephus has James condemned to death,yet it was done in an ILLEGAL way.He didn't pay attention to procedure.At least according to Josephus,who was a PHARISEE,a believer in the Oral law.

Fernando said...

«It was an accident, accidents happen...»...

just like muhammad: a perfect example of a mistake in the evolution off species: from a noble moral ground to a sub-prime one...

Anonymous said...

i would like also comment on davids saying that christianity and jesus r all abt transformation of heart. this is soo true, but seems to me that muslims aint impressed by it. i really dont understand them. islam and quran discuss absolutely everything except for these important things. sooner or later each of us will doubt and ask questions abt the purpose of life and stuff like that. islam has no answer to these questions. its just set of (absurd) laws where ones heart stays untouched. islam is all abt manifestation of ones beliefs. after reading quran and hadiths i really fail to realise how islam can be a religion of transformation of heart and i sincerely doubt if it has power to turn ppl with deviant behaviour into normal members of our society. jesus gives perfect solution to these problems. thanks to him we really know how much god loves us, bc he is his word. its so strange that god would send one witness guy as some perfect solution for the mankind. thanks to jesus we know that god loves us infinitely and wants ultimatively to forgive us. these r all proofs. furthermore, one cannot underestimate "heart" as muslims do. i cannot believe that they see the purpose of life in their pointless laws. the sin comes from the heart and by so, a physical act is the product of sin and not sin. sin comes into existence long b4, that is to say, in heart and thoughts. we shouldnt underestimate our heart. its basically source of everything. so dont nod next time when david says the truth, but try to think abt it.

galatian 3:13
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

greetings to all

Nakdimon said...

Andalusi’s rebuttal was a display of sheer pity.

#1. On the question how many atrocities have Muslims committed in the past week. His rebuttal was “how many people have Christians killed in the past week”. His facial expression said enough to see that he himself thought that the argument holds no weight whatsoever. Yes, these were not practicing Christians most don’t even consider themselves to be Christians and even if they were, they could not point to anything in the NT to justify their behaviour for just killing people. Yes, I said “point to anything in the NT” because Christians are not called CHRISTians for nothing, since everything they do is in accordance to the teachings of THE CHRIST! However, Muslims have enough to go around to justify their atrocities by the commandment of their god, the behaviour of their prophet and the tenants described in their sources. That is exactly why the “peaceful and moderate” Muslims can’t criticize their fundamentalist Muslim brothers by referring to their scriptures to show that Islam teaches otherwise. And Andalusi, I would be more than willing to keep a headcount.

#2. Then he claims that we are to do what the rulers say even if what they say is wrong. Which is not true and that would go against the commandment that you should not side with the multitude to do wrong. If a ruler tells us to do wrong when God has admonished us to do right to all people, we can’t follow the rulers. The NT teaches that we must obey God more than we obey man.

#3. Interest is NOT an oppressive system. Yeshua even uses interest in one of His parables in Matthew 25 saying:

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

My guess is that your prophet went around lending people’s money and had to pay back with interest, which he didn’t want. So he pretended his god hater interest after he begged others to “loan Allah a beautiful loan”.

#4. Source of conflict was Muhammad’s criticism, which Andalusi compared with the criticism of Yeshua in the NT. There is ONE big difference. Yeshua didn’t slaughter his own people, Muhammad DID. Which is actually the topic of the debate. Again, this is the difference between our two faiths. Islam lives by the sword, Christianity lives by faith. I also heard something about Samson in the Tenach, but couldn’t really understand what was said. I hope that this will be appealed to more in depth later, so I can address it properly.

Nakdimon said...

#5. Then Andalusi comes with a cop out excuse about Hamzah. Andalusi claims that Hamzah was not yet a Muslim and thus Hamzah was a kafir when he drew first blood. Let’s consult the Muslim sources shall we?

Ishaq:131-132 + Tabari VI:103 "Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib came with his bow slung over his shoulder. He was a great huntsman and used to go out for game with his bow and arrows. When he came back from the hunt he would not go back to his family until he had circumambulated the Ka'aba. He was the strongest man of the Quraysh. A woman rose up and said, 'If only you had seen what your nephew Muhammad had to endure just now before you came. Abu Jahl spoke to him offensively. Hamzah was carried away by a fury, AS IT WAS ALLAH'S WILL TO HONOR HIM THIS WAY. He went off quickly, not stopping to speak to anyone. Instead of circumambulating the Ka'aba, he was ready to attack Abu Jahl when he saw him. When he entered the mosque, he saw him sitting among the people. HAMZAH RAISED HIS BOW AND GAVE JAHL A BLOW WHICH SPLIT HIS HEAD OPEN IN AN UGLY WAY. He said, 'DO YOU INSULT HIM WHEN I AM A MEMBER OF HIS RELIGION? Hit me back if you can.'" "HAMZA'S ISLAM WAS COMPLETE. HE FOLLOWED THE PROPHET'S EVERY COMMAND. The Quraysh recognized THAT BY HAMZAH'S ACCEPTANCE OF ISLAM Muhammad had been made strong. HAMZAH WOULD PROTECT HIM."

Sorry Andalusi, no dice! Either you were unaware of the fact that Hamzah was already a Muslim when he drew first blood, or you didn’t know and simply made the whole thing up. Being an apologist you should have known better. I take this as an action of Taqiyah.

#6. Then Andalusi goes on to claim that the Muhammad could preach for ten years because Abu Talib’s TRIBE, the uncle of Muhammad, protected him. Again, Andalusi simply LIES! And then to ask “why does Nabeel not know this?” really shows that Muslims have NO regard for truth EVEN if it comes to their own sources. Again we turn to Ishaq and Tabari:

Tabari VI:44 "Abdul Muttalib died eight years after the Year of the Elephant. He entrusted the future Messenger's care to his uncle Abu Talib, BECAUSE ABU AND ABDALLAH HAD HAD THE SAME MOTHER."

So we see here that according to Tabari, Abu Talib and Muhammad’s father Abdallah had the same mother, which means they were from the same tribe, namely QURAISH. Yet, Andalusi claimed that the tribe of Abu Talib and the tribe of the pagan Quraish were two different tribes. This is a bold fact lie! But it gets worse for Andalusi. Tabari then goes on to tell us that Muhammad was protected by Abu Talib only. Apparently Abu Talib was held in such high esteem they didn’t attack Muhammad because of him. Yes the Quraish were that respectful and polite. Then Abu Talib died and this is what happens:

Tabari VI:115 "The deaths of Abu Talib and Khadija were a great affliction to the Messenger. After the death of Abu Talib, the Quraysh went to greater lengths in molesting him than they had ever done during his lifetime. ONE OF THEM EVEN POURED DUST UPON HIS HEAD. The Prophet said, 'The Quraysh never did anything unpleasant to me UNTIL ABU TALIB DIED.'"

So much for the “severe persecution of Muhammad by the Quraish! Muhammad said that the Quraish never did anything unpleasant to him till the death of Abu Talib and notice the phrase “one of them even poured dust upon his head”? This was the worst thing they did to him! What’s all the boo-hoo about? Ibn Ishaq tells us:

Ishaq:192 "WHEN ABU TALIB DIED, the Messenger went to Ta'if to seek support and protection against his own people."

Notice that there was no protection by Abu Talib’s tribe but by Abu Talib himself and thus there was no fear of great bloodshed amongst tribes. WHERE DOES ANDALUSI GET HIS INFORMATION FROM?

Nakdimon said...

#7. Andalusi compares the Sira of Ibn ishaq to the Gospel of Barnabas in authenticity. I know that Muslims will turn the world upside down to make their religion look good and they don’t value truth, but as far as the historical method is concerned the SIRA and NOT the collections of Hadiths by Bukhari and Muslim is the more reliable source, since it predates those hadith collections by a full century! However, the Gospel of Barnabas is a 14th century document which no historian can take seriously, and so they don’t! So the comparison is so incredibly skewed. Muslims get more desperate as time passes. The fact that Ibn Ishaq is not repudiated by other major scholars such as Ibn Kathir, Qurtubi and Tabari, shows that Ibn Ishaq was deemed a reliable source. The fact that his work was heavily relied upon shows that the picture he painted about Muhammad, being closer to a pirate than a prophet, was how the Muslims knew Muhammad in his days and probably before and beyond. Given the pattern that Muslims will attack and demonise anyone that puts Muhammad in a bad light, speaks volume on how accurate Ibn Ishaq’s Sira portrays Muhammad and his companions.

#8. Andalusi and all Muslims for that matter, should STOP appealing to Surah 5:32 which is NOT something that was given to Muslims, but to the Children of Israel, as the verse clearly states from the outset. Second of all, this was pilfered directly from the Talmud, so Allah lies when he claims that He revealed it to the Children of Israel. Third, the next verse, 5:33, was revealed for Muslims, which is one of the most bloodiest verses in the Quran. It also happens to be one of the most ambiguous verses in the Quran (which isn’t really saying much since the Quran is a host of ambiguous verses, in spite of it’s claim to be a detailed book, S.41:3 + 6:114) so you can interpret what mischief is in anyway you want.

#9. Then Andalusi claims that the Caravan raids that Muhammad conducted were the stolen property of the Muslims which they left in Mecca when they fled because of the persecution. This mantra has to stop! Muslims always make this claim, but there is NOTHING to support it. I’m sure that some Muslims had to give up some of their property when they fled Mecca, but to claim that they lost as much as they stole from the Quraish, is just preposterous. Most of the Meccan Muslims were poor people. And what they stole was NOT what the Meccans had taken from them. Let’s go back to the Muslim sources. After Muhammad had sent his stooges to “lay in wait” for the caravan we are told:

Ishaq:289 "The Apostle heard that Abu Sufyan WAS COMING FROM SYRIA WITH A LARGE QURAYSH CARAVAN CONTAINING THEIR MONEY AND THEIR MERCHANDISE. He was accompanied by only thirty men." "Muhammad summoned the Muslims and said, 'This is the Quraysh caravan CONTAINING THEIR PROPERTY. GO OUT AND ATTACK IT. Perhaps Allah will give it to us as prey."

So the Muslims were told that the caravan contained the merchandise of the MECCANS and NOT of the Muslims! So much for stealing back what was once yours!

#10. Then Andalusi quotes from some unknown book that is supposed to support his claim. But Ibn Ishaq, the first pious Muslim who bothered to write anything about Muhammad on paper for in more than a century after Muhammad, fabricated it all, right? Sure!

#11. To show that Islam is this peaceful religion that allows freedom of religion Andalusi tries names the Copts in Egypt and all kinds of denominations of Christians and Jews in countries in the Middle East. But Andalusi forgets what this debate is all about. We aren’t arguing that Christians and Jews don’t get to live amongst Muslims, but that they live there in Muslim lands under the most humiliating circumstances. The virtually have no rights in comparison to Muslims. Having ambitions in life as a non-Muslim is an impossibility in a Muslim society living out Sharia law.

Nakdimon said...

#12. Then Andalusi tries to deal with the explanation that Muslims should show friendship outwardly but never inwardly. He tries to justify that Muslims should not take Jews and Christians as allies, because they don’t believe what Muslims believe and you therefore can’t have a Jew or a Christian govern in a Muslim state if you have Sharia Law. But then, Abdullah, you living in the UK where democracy and freedom of speech is advocated, should also be banned from public office, right? Since you are FOR Sharia Law which goes against freedom of speech and democracy! Doesn’t that go both ways? Then why are you mad when people in the West don’t allow Muslims a prominent place in the public realm in a democratic society? Why do you hold on to unequal weights and measures and call it “oppression” when you, a frontier for Sharia, are denied such a place in democratic society?

#13. I find it utterly amusing to see Muslims appeal to the Bible without having the slightest inclination to try to understand what the text is actually saying. As long as Islam looks better than it actually is in reality, Muslims will go to all kinds of lengths to try to discredit the Bible and bring it down to the level of, let’s say… the Quran. In 2 Corinthians 6 Paul is telling the Corinthians to hold on to their faith with gladness, joy and righteousness, even if they are mistreated, cast out and miserable in the eyes of others. They need to be of good spirit, and NOT to be burdened/yoked as the non-believers! That is what verse 6 is talking about. We should not be like the unbelievers in our conduct, for what does righteousness have to do with wickedness, light with darkness, etc., contrasting all the good of God’s Spirit with the bad of the world, since we have a higher calling than the world. This has nothing to do with taking as friends unbelievers or treating them properly with love as people created in God’s image. Muslims, STOP appealing to the Bible, especially to Paul, whose conduct was way above anything Muhammad ever taught or did.

Nakdimon said...

#14. Andalusi then goes on to say that sacrificing your life for God is a noble thing to do. Yes, sacrificing your life for God to save others, not to kill people no matter whom they are, in the hope for a heavenly reward of eternal pleasure. I will keep emphasize the dividing line. This is how we are told to sacrifice our lives to God:

Romans 12: 1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies AS LIVING SACRIFICES, holy and pleasing to God—THIS IS YOUR SPIRITUAL ACT OF WORSHIP. 2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Do you see the difference? We are to sacrifice ourselves as a LIVING sacrifice to Yahweh. You, on the other hand, are to sacrifice yourself as a DYING sacrifice to Allah. Again, I will take Paul over Allah of Muhammad any day!

#15. then Andalusi tries to appeal to a teaching of Muhammad where he claims that whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed him. Well, I can explain that: the Dhimmi PAYS him! What actually happens to someone that is NOT willing to pay? He loses his status as Dhimmi and is fair game to any Muslim. In other words: you pay, you live! You mean I can PAY for Allah’s protection? Since when does God value money? How on earth is this any different from the practices of Al Capone and the Corleone family? By the way there is a telling Hadith from Sahih Muslim Book 030, Number 5853 where a Jew who was a Dhimmi was punched in the face by a Muslim for referring to Moses instead of Muhammad. When the Jew went to Muhammad and tried to get justice, Muhammad got angry at the Muslim, not for punching the Jew in the face, mind you, but for making a distinction between prophets. Bottom line, the Jew didn’t get any justice done by him. Andalusi goes on to quote more hadiths which are totally contradictory to the Quran. (That is, if these are hadiths at all, since he doesn’t bother to give us the source where he quotes from) Such as “whoever humiliates a dhimmi I will oppose him on the day of Judgment. While Surah 9:29 says that the Dhimmi should pay Jizyah in the state of humiliation. But because they make Muhammad look good, Andalusi has no quarrel quoting them as actual sayings of Muhammad.

Nakdimon said...

#16. So Aisha was “tapped”, huh? I don’t know about you, but I don’t “tap” my wife like that. Let’s check the hadith:

Sahih Muslim 4:2127 he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. HE STRUCK ME ON THE CHEST WHICH CAUSED ME PAIN, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?..."

Does this sound like a “tap” to you? Actually Aisha and Hafsa got slapped around quite a lot:

Sahih Bukhari 6:60:132: Narrated Aisha: A necklace of mine was lost at Al-Baida' and we were on our way to Medina. The Prophet made his camel kneel down and dismounted and laid his head on my lap and slept. ABU BAKR CAME TO ME AND HIT ME VIOLENTLY ON THE CHEST AND SAID, "YOU HAVE DETAINED THE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF A NECKLACE." I KEPT AS MOTIONLESS AS A DEAD PERSON BECAUSE OF THE POSITION OF ALLAH'S APOSTLE ; (ON MY LAP) ALTHOUGH ABU BAKR HAD HURT ME (WITH THE SLAP).

Sahih Muslim 9:3506 Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported:…. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter ofKhadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger (mav peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. ABU BAKR (ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HIM) THEN GOT UP WENT TO 'A'ISHA (ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HER) AND SLAPPED HER ON THE NECK, AND 'UMAR STOOD UP BEFORE HAFSA AND SLAPPED HER SAYING: You ask Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess….

Well according to Muhammad you can even slap the hell out of your wife when she is too pious and fasts too much. And you know… it is prohibited to have sex when fasting:

Sunan Abu Dawud 13:2452 Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: A woman came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) while we were with him. She said: Apostle of Allah, my husband, Safwan ibn al-Mu'attal, beats me when I pray, and makes me break my fast when I keep a fast, and he does not offer the dawn prayer until the sun rises. He asked Safwan, who was present, about what she had said. He replied: Apostle of Allah, as for her statement "HE BEATS ME WHEN I PRAY", SHE RECITES TWO SURAHS (DURING PRAYER) AND I HAVE PROHIBITED HER (to do so). He (the Prophet) said: If one surah is recited (during prayer), that is sufficient for the people.(Safwan continued:) As regards her saying "he makes me break my fast," SHE DOTES ON FASTING; I AM A YOUNG MAN, I CANNOT RESTRAIN MYSELF. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said on that day: A WOMAN SHOULD NOT FAST EXCEPT WITH THE PERMISSION OF HER HUSBAND.(Safwan said:) As for her statement that I do not pray until the sun rises, we are a people belonging to a class, and that (our profession of supplying water) is already known about us. We do not awake until the sun rises. He said: When you awake, offer your prayer.

Oh, what a peace loving religion this is. What just violence it perpetrates.


Nakdimon said...

MAN! Just watched the Rebuttals. that was a massacre! David and Nabeel tag teamed that one nicely!

Shalom ubaruch HaShem!


Fernando said...

Brother The Fat Man saide: «Look at the facial expressions of yahya»... I refrained to see Yahya... butt it was SOOOOO obvious in another debate thate was previously placed in this blogg thate he some serious issues to delt withe... some "anger management" therapy...

and I missed completely anything about him going to a madrassa... did he sai so? or was the another Yahya?

Nakdimon said...

Have a question for Yahya tho. How was Nabeel's reference to Sahih Muslim where Muhammad beat Aisha mistranslated?

It seems to me that whenever Muslims are stuck with their sources, they immediately argue for mistranslation, even if they dont know what was mistranslated. I would think that Muslims believe that their translators deliberately mistranslate their sources in order to make Islam look bad.

Yahya, I am awaiting your response.


Nakdimon said...

The argument of the Jew in the crowd made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Arguing that Yeshua broke the Torah by calling himself a prophet? Where does it say that calling yourself a prophet is a violation of the Torah?

First, saying that they would stone Yeshua to death in the time of Yeshua would have gotten him in trouble. Second, saying that God cannot come in human flesh is per Tenach nonsensical. I challenge him to explain the theophanies in Genesis 32, Genesis 18, Exodus 24, Judges 6, Judges 13 and to explain passages which are clear references to the appearance of HaShem in passages such as Zechariah 12, Isaiah 48, Malachi 3 and Isaiah 9. How can orthodox Jews say that God has no form, when the patriarchs clearly didnt believe God didnt have a form?

Any orthodox Jew I ask to reconcile these passages CANT DO SO, without completely twist the passages and turn the Tenach upside down.

Fernando said...

Islamophobia from egyptian top cleric:

Egypt top cleric bans veiled women from Muslim schoolst...

hey Osama: I guess you'll habe to creatte a page in your full off virus web site against this anti-islamic folks... Osama knows best...

Nakdimon said...

I have noticed a pattern from the Muslims in this debate and others as well. Whenever David and Nabeel quote from Muslim sources, they are always, without exception, accused of taking things out of context. Which is fine! But the evidence of them taking things out of context is never supplied. Notice that whenever they are accused of taking things out of context, the Muslims will tell the people what the actual context is, but they almost never give the reference or quote from the source they claim provides the context. Because they know that when they would actually read their sources to the audience, they wouldn’t be able to twist their source without getting caught red handed.

Suggestion, Nabeel and David, the next time some Muslim accuses you in a debate, please ask him to give the reference and/or actually read the relevant portion of the source to the audience. They make all kinds of claims that you should provide the evidence for everything you say. Hold them to the same standards.


Nakdimon said...

What I also found ironic is Andalusi’s closing remark about how do you stop the Africans from poverty and starvation.

Isn’t that nice! What does Islam teach about providing sustenance for the kufaar Africans? Can you tell me that? Better yet, what is Islam’s history of helping other non-Muslim nations to build up their community and economy? What has Islam’s history been when it comes to helping the poor within the non-Muslim world?

Care to answer?


Fernando said...

Brother Nakdimon, you can also question whate is islam (so many rich nations around there) doing to help the victims off the heartquake in Indonesia... all the major help has been guiben by non-muslim countries...

Nakdimon said...

Which is exactly my point brother Fernando! What have Muslims done for the largest Muslim country in the world so far? There have been earthquakes, tsunamis and all kinds of hardship that hit the people of Indonesia and almost all the aid came from the "christian" west. Almost none came from the Muslim world.

Abdullah Al Andalusi, CARE TO EXPLAIN???


Monica said...

I absolutely love the final statement by David Wood.

"... our friends really do believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Why? Because... I'll tell you the reason. Because they've been raised in the West. Jesus' teachings about love and peace have played a role in the West here, and Muslims have now been influenced, and so I praise God for the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ that are still having an impact on the world, even today, even in the Muslim world."

Excellent debate guys, you did well. May God bless you both.

mkvine said...

David Wood: "We ask Muslims, what is your greatest commentator? Muslims say, Ibn Kathir! So when we go to Ibn Kathir, Muslims say, How dare you quote Ibn Kathir!!!"

Adnan Rashid: "PLEASE quote Ibn Kathir!!!"

David Wood: "Fine, let's see what Ibn Kathir says..."

Adnan Rashid: "NOOO, wait, wait, HOLD ON!!!!"

LOLOL I see some inconsistency here on the part of Muslims.

minoria said...

Another thing Muslim apologists point out to always is that there are Christians say in Egypt.Then Islam promotes tolerance.You read that often in their books.There is more than enough evidence to show the Muslim tolerance in Spain is a myth.But that works for non-Muslims who don't know that Christians in Egypt have always been discriminated there,mistreated.


It is like saying:"There have always been black people in the
US and that proves that racial tolerance has always existed there."Do you see the point?


The problem with non-Muslims in general is that we don't realize that when Muslim intellectuals say "good","bad","aggression",they have a different DEFINITION.In their books they talk of promoting what good.But they generally don't mean good=human rights.They mean good=beliefs of Islam.That is how the majority of Muslims see it.

I was rereading a bit about Richard Carrier and his idea that the EMPTY TOMB was invented by MATT and LUKE.He thinks MARK did not believe in an empty tomb.For Mark the empty tomb description is only a metaphor.


What really militates against his idea is 1 COR 15.

1.But first,a spiritual resurrection does not exist in Judaism.Surely Carrier knows that.

2.On top of that 1 COR 15 is,from the way Paul presents it in his letter,a kerygma,or official belief of the Christians.Paul himself takes the TROUBLE to say right after the 1 COR 15 creed the statement is held by the apostles.

minoria said...

3.Virtually all skeptical scholars believe 1 COR 15 is from within a few months to at the most 5 years after Jesus' death.That it comes from Jerusalem,and from the structure in Greek,was in Aramaic.One of the 2 exceptions is ROBERT PRICE,who thinks it is from the 2nd century,but even CARRIER thinks he is wrong on that.

4.What really militates against Carrier is that he ignores the AUDIENCE to who 1 COR 15 was directed to:the Palestinian Jews,who spoke Aramaic.

For them "died and was buried" always meant "put body in cave as tomb".From 30 BC to 70 AD the Jews there consistently did it.CONTEXT is vital.If you write a creed for the HINDUS and say "and had a FUNERAL",of course it is understood,"there was a cremation."

5.And in the creed it says "and woke up on the 3rd day".THAT in addition supports that "buried" meant "put in tomb-cave"since it was a case of a body that all of a sudden became alive again.You see,then,in Aramaic,for the Jews,"to go to sleep"was another way of saying "died".

6.That is why the great majority of scholars believe Paul meant a PHYSICAL resurrection.Even BART EHRMAN rejects the idea they meant a SPIRITUAL one.

For Carrier to really convince us no empty tomb was believed in by the early disciples(not whether it is true it was empty or not,only that is was their belief)he would have to shown real documentary evidence from Jewish and non-Jewish sources to make his theory be convincing.There is none.It is his personal preference only.

minoria said...


ANTHONY FLEW was one of the top atheist philosophers for several decades.Surely Carrier knows him well and Flew knows all the atheist arguments Carrier knows and which convince him there is no God.Now Flew is a theist,or better said deist.He believes in God,but that God does not intervene,but he does not rule out the possibility.

He wrote about why he changed his mind in THERE IS A GOD.It is a popular book,so he doesn't dwell on the technicalities on the atheistic arguments.What I am saying is that when see all clearly Carrier's case against a physical resurrection belief and the existence of God are LESS intellectual convincing.WHY?

Becasue the evidence in his favor is NOT there.


It would be like Carrier saying a certain Indian creed that had "there was a funeral" meant "he was buried in a grave".No scholar would accept it.Unless real documentary proof exists,the evidence for such an idea is NOT there.

WomanForTruth101 said...

Its so laughable, to see christians on here, apparently they all think they're are scholors on islam. Why should we muslims, who obviously cant compare to the knoweledge of these christians, even debate with them? They're ALL experts! they know their stuff indside and out! we just take verses, hadiths out of context, with ZERO knoweledge about the history of them.
We only read the quran daily, pray 5 times daily, and fast during the holy month. We only attend lectures and classes on islam. What authority do we have over christians? they dont judge what they see or hear. they've studied for years about islam. they dont make up numerous sites targeting us and countinously proclaim christianity is the truth. their book if full of math and science and prophecies. isn't it obvious the obsession of islam to the christians is because they KNOW it?
they know ALOT more than us. More than those of us who were raised or converted (like me).
Any book that says God's spirit will be guiding and controlling those who follow a man who past away on a cross, a spirit that will make all christians kind, siincere and honest, a spirit that will control its believers not to hate, mock or insult others MUST be true right?

WomanForTruth101 said...

"Funny how 7:157 states Muhammad saw himself in the Gospel, yet the only references in the Gospel refer to Muhammad as a false prophet."

Oh yeah, an unlettered prophet who would be like Moses, who would come from ARABIA, who would only speak what he was told.......

mkvine said...

And YET, WomanForTruth101 hasn't addressed ANY of the issues David or Nabeel brought up. Show us from your Islamic knowledge why they are wrong?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Woman for Truth,

How are you?
you said

Oh yeah, an unlettered prophet who would be like Moses, who would come from ARABIA, who would only speak what he was told.......

I ask:

Where in the gospel is there a prophecy about a “unlettered prophet who would be like Moses, who would come from ARABIA, who would only speak what he was told….”?

Please be specific and deal with the texts in context

Thanks in advance

Anthony Rogers said...


Muhammad was unlettered? Thanks for supplying another way that Muhammad was not like Moses.

minoria said...

Hello WomanforTruth:

The way I see it is this:the majority of Muslims in the world are for Sharia law.There are different kinds of Sharia law systems:that of Iran is different from that of Saudi Arabia,etc.Yet they all violate the human rights of us non-Muslims through discrimination laws.Even if the 20 million Muslims in the West were to become 100% secular that means nothing.

There some 1.2 billion Muslims.What are 20 million liberals compared to more than 1 billion in favor of discriminating us non-Muslims?


From the looks of it Paul Williams,Seymour and Andalusi all agree with death for apostates.By logic it would also mean death for blasphemy,that is for us here in the blog.


I do not know what your position is but by that standard MAINSTREAM Islam is NOT a religion of peace.Because it is in FAVOR of discrimination against us non-Muslims.I know there are Muslims who say that is not true Islam(and they cite:"no compulsion in religion")but they are a minority.In fact,it has been like that for us non-Muslims for 1,400 years under Islam.That is the problem of mainstream Islam,it is against modernity and humanistic values.

minoria said...

To continue:

So in ssence you do not have to be a scholar to know that we non-Muslims are treated as inferior under Islamic law.In MALAYSIA 20% are BUDDHIST,10% HINDU and 10% CHRISTIAN.Those people in general have never read the Koran and never will.They know little of the doctrines.

What they do know is that they are second-class citizens only because they are not Muslim.That they can be punished if they say skeptical comments about Islam.Again,I don't know what your position is,but for the non-Muslims in Malaysia,Islam is not a religion of peace,but of division and yes,oppression.

mkvine said...

David Wood and Nabeel Qureishi, is there any possibility of you guys making a video on the Life of Muhammad using the earliest Muslim sources? I don't mean a Youtube video, I mean an actual 2 hour Movie. That would be very interesting to see. Maybe you should contact the Discovery Channel.

Knowledge Seeker said...

Dear all

Discover the truth about Islam

Thank you

Adam said...

As Salam Alaykum Dear Knowledge Seeker.

thanx for the Links

There is another link to Discover the truth about Islam hope it will be helpful to all

faktb said...

Yahya Seymour,

You said to use al-Razi.

But al-Razi said for:

1) 9:5 to kill the pagans wherever you find them and whenever you them.

2) 9:29 that Jews & Christians are deserving of Muslim attack until they pay jizya. Also, accepting jizya and sparing their lives is a great blessing for Jews and Christians.

3) 9:30 that Christians are worse than polytheists. They deserve the same fate as polythesits, but they are off the hook based on a technicality.

Would you care to respond?

Also, are you ever going to respond about Aisha being caused pain?

Thank u.

minoria said...

To knowledgeseeker:

I gave a quick look at the blog suggested.There is one thing I object.Why there and in other Muslim books do they use the term "Muslim/Islamic" science?It is illogical.

Science is just science.NEWTON,PASTEUR and GALILEO were believers.Yet nobody ever calls their works "Christian science".

EINSTEIN was Jewish.Do we ever call his books "Jewish science"?Plastic surgery first appeared in INDIA,yet nobody says "Hindu science."Strange world.

STOCK TIPS said...

Part 1
I have watched your recent debates. I am including some videos of Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist and a Christian believer. Please let me know if you think his references about Muslims in the Bible are accurate. Especially the crescent ornamnets on camel's back showing as Moon God. Thanks

1] ALLAH The MOON god [the video with the kid on his knees]

Allah not a Hebrew or greek word, it is an Arabic word used in reference to an Arabic deity. Origin of word Allah goes to pre-Muslim times. For generations b4 Mohammed was born, people of Mecca worshipped some 360 pagan gods housed at a stone temple called Kabah. The Chief deity was the moon god called Al-ilah which was shortened to Allah in pre-islamic times. They worhsipped the moon god by bowing towards Mecca several times a day. The pagans prayed towards Mecca because that is where their gods were stationed. They would also make a pilgrimage to Mecca, run around the Kabah seven times and throw stones at the devil. And they fasted for one month which began with the appearance of the crescent moon and ended when the crescent moon re-appeared. [does all these practices sound familiar - this was meant for the Arabs not for you. The Quraysh Tribe of Mecca {Mohammed was born in to Hashemite clan of the Quraysh tribe]

Don’t these rites form the core of Islam today? The Muslim’s claim is refuted by solid, overwhelming historical & archeological evidence. [good read about validity of Quran & Bible, along with the satanic verses] [history of Hubal & Allah the moon god]
2] Proof islam and allah are the antichrist!!
2 John 1:7 ******************************************************************
3] 100% Proof that Islam is From Satan Part I
[seekers of salvation by death, Sharia law - Islamic theocracy to dominate non-muslims]
1John 2:22:

STOCK TIPS said...

Part 2
4] 100% Proof that Islam is From Satan Part II

How could Islam reject idea of Atonement - by some one dying [Jesus]for somebody else & a martyr / muslim's family will have a marriage like celebration for the martyr is in heaven on the first drop of his blood and he intercedes for 70 members in his family so that they can go to paradise.
[55 muslim countires are not signed to the Hague convention] - woman rights not there
Who else does not honor woman - Anti Christ

David defeated Goliath - that's how God works [ if it happened other way around where is the miracle? good example - Israel]
5] 100% Proof that Islam is from Satan Part III

Amos 9:15 - Prophecy of Israel
Psalm 82:8 :
Psalm 83:4-6 Muslims in the Bible
Psalm 83:11 Zebah & Zalmunna
Judjes 8:21 - Story of Gideon & what he did to Zebah & Zalmunna
Zalmunna, and took away the
6] 100% Proof that Islam is From Satan PartIV

Isaiah 45:23 b; Isaiah 46:1
Out of 99 names of Allah:
Al mudhaka bir - the most proud one
abdaar the afflictor
al mumeech-the one who causes death
al maykir- the great deceiver

Funerals become marriages in which the martyr is now be-wed to virgins
7] 100% Proof that Islam is from Satan Part V

Prophecy for Muslims Joel 3:3-4
Joel 3:17; Joel 3:19; Joel 3:21
Joel 3:16; Rev 17:10;Act 9 - Asteroid was worshiped; black stone is an asteroid]
Isaiah 12:6; Isaiah 3:1,3,4-5
Isaiah 14: 4; Isaiah 14:8,9
Isaiah 14:12

O Lucifer / Arabic O Hilal / Hebrew Bin Sahar
Hilal - brightness also means crescent moon [Judges 8:21]
Isaiah 14:16
Isaiah 15 – Moab / Jordan
Isaiah 17 – Damascus
Isaiah 18 Kush – Ethopia/ Sudan
Isaiah 19 Egypt

Why is the lord fighting these Muslim nations? Isaiah 34: 8
Ezekiel chapters 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 - Nations are thrown in to the pit

STOCK TIPS said...

Part 3
A.D changed to A.H in muslim countries
Babylonian religion
God does not want one religion, no Muslim can worship Allah without worshipping him in Arabic.
One language, one nation, one law – one government for whole world
Who is the anti-christ?
10] Walid Shoebat speaks on islam
Irradication of Jews from Israel
Terrorism is a cult like education to convert of people to become remorseless killers. It’s like a drug like addiction, feeds on frenzy like speeches.
Fire the clergies who preach this in the middle east
11] Former Islamic Terrorists became followers of Jesus Christ
A terrorist convert who killed 225 people.
Islam like hotel California, you can check in if you want. But if you want out, it will be in a coffin.
Assurance on salavation in Islam only through martyrdom.
Waleed’s new found faith cost him his father & sibblings and now is in hiding
12] Is the Koran Accurate? Ravi Zacharias explains
Vigin birth
Kalamat allah – word of God
Ruh Allah – Spirit of God
Jesus had power to raise from dead. Mohammed had any of these attributes
Meeting with Grand Mufti of Jerusalem – “No Compulsion in religion”
No freedom to disbelief Islam. Islam fastest growing enforced religion of world
Malaysia – people have to go before tribunal [muslim judges] if a muslim changes religion.
13] Is the Koran Absolute?
Mohammed performed no miracles. Islam says miracle in Quran. If you do not know Arabic then you cannot know the miracle because English translation of Quran not original. Original revelation [Injeel] lost, and 600 years later Mohammed gets his revelation. Now mormons have come with the new revelation.
Islam can debunk the truths that Christains hold, but that cannot done to names that are precious to Islam
14] Who is Jesus? Dr. Ravi Zacharias Explains.
Jesus said "I am the way, truth & life". Because " I live & u also shall live" - the Author and giver of life
Mark 14 Are you son of God? Jesus said "I am"
" I who speaks am HE"