Nadir Ahmed, Ahmed Deedat, and the Curse of God

As we've seen, Nadir Ahmed claims that Allah struck Shabir Ally's son blind because Shabir believes that Jesus was nailed to a cross. It's clear to everyone that Nadir is attacking Shabir because of envy and jealousy. Yet Nadir maintains that he is simply being consistent. That is, since he gladly declares that people like me have been cursed by Allah, he must be consistent and claim that people like Shabir have also been cursed.

So which explanation of Nadir's horrendous actions is correct? Is Nadir attacking Shabir out of envy? Or is he attacking Shabir because he wants to be consistent?

There is a simple way to prove that Nadir is acting from jealousy, and it has been noted by two contributors in our comments section (one Christian and one Muslim). If Nadir is really consistent, he will have to proclaim that Ahmed Deedat was also cursed by God. Deedat, like Shabir Ally, embraced Swoon Theory and helped popularize it among Muslims. In 1996, Deedat suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed and unable to speak or swallow for the rest of his life.

Is Nadir willing to say that Deedat was cursed by Allah? Of course not. Even Nadir wouldn't dare to say such a thing. This proves, conclusively, that he isn't attacking Shabir from consistency, but from a desire to bring down apologists who are obviously better and more famous than he is.

Nadir Ahmed Declares: "Shabir Ally's Son Is Cursed!"

It's no secret that Nadir Ahmed will attack any apologist who is obviously superior to him (i.e. every apologist in the world). But it's also true that the better the apologist, the more Nadir will want to bring him down--by any means necessary.

Take, for instance, my first debate with Sami Zaatari. Many people were shocked at Nadir's attack on Sami during the Q&A period. Nadir suggested that Christians should not debate Sami because he is not equipped for debate. Why would Nadir make such a claim? The answer is simple. A day earlier, Nadir had been utterly humiliated in a debate with James White, as even Muslims will admit. Yet Muslims were generally quite pleased with Sami's performance. So what does a self-centered, selfish, power-hungry egomaniac like Nadir do when he is obviously outshined by a much younger apologist? For Nadir, there was only one option: Attack Sami.

Those who have dealt with Nadir in the past know that this is nothing new, for he has a long history of attacking Muslim apologists, often in an extremely offensive manner. Over the past few years, for instance, Nadir has called Shabir Ally a "dummy," a "loser," and "weak-minded." Nadir even said that debating Shabir Ally is like debating someone's grandmother. But these baseless insults are nothing compared to Nadir's most recent tirade against Shabir.

In a desperate attack, Nadir has claimed that Shabir's son has been cursed by God because Shabir believes in Swoon Theory (the view that Jesus was crucified, but that He survived crucifixion). According to Nadir, Shabir's son is blind because God struck him due to Shabir's beliefs. Indeed, Nadir maintains that Muslims must believe that Shabir's son has been cursed by God, since to believe otherwise is to be inconsistent. Nadir says:

Muslim have no problem accepting that Anis Shorosh was punished, or Jimmy Swaggart was punished..Muslim have no problem saying that ... so now be consistent... be honest.. and say the same thing about Shabir Aly.

And praise the Lord, the Christians have testified to to honesty and even handedness - I applauded the demise of Morey, Sharosh, Wood, and when Christians confronted me about other Muslims... I did not hold a double standard and use the same standard to judge them...

My response to why Allah punished Shabir Aly, or other Muslims... it is the curse of the cross. They embraced it, and Allah punished them. Now all those Muslim who mocked Sharosh and the Christians... need to come forward and admit the same thing about Aly.

It is a matter of honesty... and we can not have a double standard.

Now let's follow Nadir's reasoning through to the logical conclusion. Shabir defends Swoon Theory. Instead of striking Shabir with blindness, Allah struck Shabir's son. So Nadir believes that God punishes one person for the sins of another. But since Nadir believes that God can punish person X for the sins of person Y, why would Nadir object to the cross at all? And if there's no good reason to object to the cross, why would Allah strike Shabir's son because Shabir took a different position on an ambiguous verse of the Qur'an?

We should keep in mind that the Hadith supports Nadir's view that God punishes people for the sins of others:

Sahih Muslim 6666--Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire.

Sahih Muslim 6668--Allah's Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

Nadir, however, believes that parents' sins are paid for, not by Jews and Christians, but by their own babies! This is an interesting view for a Muslim to hold, considering verses such as the following:

Qur'an 6:164--Say: What! Shall I seek a Lord other than Allah? And He is the Lord of all things; and no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed.

Qur'an 17:15--Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray; nor can the bearer of a burden bear the burden of another, nor do We chastise until We raise an Apostle.

Nadir, it seems, has gone against the clear teachings of the Qur'an. But if Allah blinded Shabir's son because Shabir reinterpreted an ambiguous verse, what will Allah do to Nadir when Nadir ignores obvious statements of the Qur'an? Perhaps Allah will strike Nadir's career, and cause him to be despised by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists around the world. Oops. It's too late to do that.

I know that Muslims in general are repulsed by Nadir's antics. But I have no clue why only a small handful of Muslims (e.g. Yahya Seymour and Sami Zaatari) are openly speaking out against him. I disagree with William Lane Craig on various issues. I also disagree with James White. Yet it would never occur to me to say that these men are cursed because they disagree with me, and I would certainly not tolerate other Christians condemning them due to minor disagreements.

Shabir Ally is Islam's greatest debater. He is extremely intelligent. He's also kind, pleasant to be around, unoffensive, and honorable. He is a man of integrity. He is very much what I would want to be like if I were a Muslim apologist.

Nadir, on the other hand, is rude, obnoxious, disrespectful, arrogant, boastful, violent, and deceptive. He uses horribly foul language, insults Christians and Muslims alike, and tries to get the entire world to revolve around himself. He is one of the worst debaters in history, completely unable to focus on the topic at hand. Nadir obviously suffers from chronic envy and jealousy. He wants to bring everyone else down, so that his own status will be better by comparison. He is illogical, immoral, and has absolutely no personal integrity. He is, in short, the exact opposite of what I would want to be if I were a Muslim apologist.

I conclude with a piece of advice for Nadir. Nadir, if you're on the first floor of a building, and you're jealous because other people are on the top floor, the solution is not to tear down the building in an effort to bring them down to your level. Rather, the solution is to start climbing the stairs. Similarly, if the world is repulsed by your horrendous behavior, constant insults, and delusions of grandeur, and you're jealous of more respectable people, the solution is not to attack people who are obviously better than you. Instead, the solution is to reform your character and actions, and to learn something before you talk.

Debates in May

Again, just around the corner. Sorry for the late heads up! But here's the info in case you can make it:

Saturday's Debates
Glenwood Campus of Coastal Community Church
3:00-5:45 Abdallah vs. Qureshi: "Is The Qur'an Miraculous?"
7:00-9:00 Wood vs. Abdallah "Was Jesus Crucified?"

Sunday's Debates
Jackson Memorial Baptist Church
3:00-5:45 Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood: "Who Was Muhammad?"
7:00-9:00 Nabeel Qureshi vs. Farhan Qureshi: "Who Was Jesus?"

Nadir Ahmed: The Facts Are Pouring In

Believe it or not, many people aren't too fond of Nadir Ahmed. Indeed, Christians and Muslims are sending me emails loaded with information about Nadir, and there seems to be no end in sight. In this post, I'd like to share some new information that may help shed light on Nadir's character and beliefs.

First, a Muslim emailed me to confirm something Keith Truth said in the comments section of an earlier post. Nadir claims that Shabir Ally's son is blind because God cursed Shabir for believing in Swoon Theory. (This is interesting, since Nadir's friend Ehteshaam believes that Swoon Theory is the only reasonable view to take.) I find this incredibly offensive. I have a fully disabled child, and an Ahmadi Muslim named Naser Shams once told me that my child's disability is due to the curse of Allah. (Since the gene for this disability affects half of all male babies on my wife's side of the family, our friend Naser must think that God cursed dozens of babies to punish me for my unbelief.) So Nadir's absurd and ignorant attack against Shabir is all too familiar to me. Let me say that Shabir Ally is the greatest Muslim debater in the world, that he is one of the nicest men I have ever met, and that he is intellectually and morally superior to Nadir. To use the disability of Shabir's child as an opportunity to attack him seems almost too slimy, even for Nadir. I hope that readers will take this appalling and unwarranted attack into account when they consider whether Nadir Ahmed needs to be completely, utterly, totally exposed.

Second, let's take a brief look at Nadir's ex-wives (yes, plural) and his criminal record. Nadir has been married and divorced twice. I'll be sharing more information in future posts (pending communication with the victims of being married to Nadir). Nadir married his first wife, Fatima, in October of 2001, and they divorced in May of 2006. I haven't been able to confirm yet whether an illicit affair was involved in the separation, but I do know that Nadir was charged with Domestic Battery and Violating an Order of Protection against Fatima. He pleaded guilty to the latter and was found not guilty of the former. (Nadir faced other charges when he was younger, such as criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct, but we'll assume that he's reformed since then.)

Even more interesting, according to court documents, Nadir and Fatima were divorced on May 2, 2006 (having lived together until May 1, 2006). Yet Nadir married his second wife, Essraa, on June 1, 2006! I'll let Nadir fill in the details, but this seems awfully fast (less than a month between the divorce and the marriage to his new wife). But things get worse. Nadir and Essraa were divorced in July of 2006 (yes, less than two months after the marriage). I think we should refrain from judgment until Nadir has a chance to explain. I'll simply say that I can see why someone would look at this and wonder if Muta is involved.

Christians Targeted for Slaughter in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Two attacks on Christian families in the city of Kirkuk on Sunday evening left three people dead and two others wounded, police said.

The first occurred in a neighborhood in southern Kirkuk when a Christian woman and her daughter-in-law were murdered in their home late night Sunday. Police told CNN the attackers slit the women's throats.

In a neighborhood close by, gunmen attacked a Christian family in their home, shooting a father and his three sons, police said. One of the sons died instantly and the other son and the father were wounded. READ MORE.

The Sad, Lonely World of Nadir Ahmed

Nadir has been emailing me over the past few days (until I had to block him). He knows I'm doing a series of videos and articles on him, so he sent me his favorite picture of himself to use in my posts. (He calls this his "approved picture.")



I was surprised to see that Nadir's best picture of himself is so depressing, but then I realized how lonely Nadir must be. When a man insults everyone around him, compulsively lies, and tries to bully and manipulate people--well, let's just say that this isn't a recipe for lasting friendships.

I remember the last time I saw Nadir. We were in California for some debates. When we were done, Nadir tried to get everyone to hang out with him. No one, Christian or Muslim, wanted to spend so much as a moment with Nadir. He kept saying, "Come on, I'm wired, let's go out." But no one wanted anything to do with him. Everyone wanted to get as far away from him as possible, as quickly as possible. Then a few of us did go out, but not with Nadir.

What I found shocking was that Nadir didn't seem to understand why everyone was so repulsed by his behavior. Nadir insults people regularly; he calls people names; he insults not only his opponents, but their families; he accuses his opponents of being pedophiles; he spreads lies about people; he threatens his fellow Muslims with physical violence; he uses horribly offensive language; he accuses his fellow Muslim apologists of being homosexuals; he lies constantly; and he never stops praising himself. And yet, he just doesn't understand why people don't want to be around someone who behaves like this. It's as if Nadir can't escape the mentality of a nine-year-old, and he doesn't understand why other people see things differently.

On the one hand, I pity Nadir. He clearly has low self-esteem, and his tantrums and atrocious behavior seem like some kind of pathetic defense mechanism. Perhaps Nadir has compulsions that he cannot control, driving away all those around him. Indeed, we may wonder whether Nadir has other psychological problems. Anyone who starts rambling about sex with prostitutes in the middle of a debate on New Testament reliability can't be completely stable.

It seems, then, that something isn't right about Nadir, and that some of his behavior may not be his fault. When I think about this, I don't want to start a series on Nadir. It's just not nice to attack someone whose faculties aren't functioning properly. And yet, just when I think I can't go through with it, Nadir sends Mike Licona (a historical Jesus scholar and a close friend of mine) an unprovoked email, calling Mike a "dork." It's times like this that make me realize that psychological disorders are irrelevant here. After all, if a man had a deadly and contagious virus, he would be quarantined, whether the virus was his fault or not. Similarly, if a man is the most selfish, egomaniacal, insulting, arrogant, deceptive person I have ever met, he must be exposed, whether he's in his right mind or not.

Answering Muslims: Website FAQ

Our approach to answering Muslims is simple: love the people, hate the lies.

Many people have taken offense to our website, saying it promotes misunderstanding and hatred. This could not be further from the truth. The goal of this website is to point out the truth, thereby clearing up any misunderstandings people may have. The ultimate purpose of this website is to bring people into a loving relationship with each other and with God. So to say that we are promoting misunderstanding and hatred is wrong.

Below are some frequently asked questions, with our answers.

Q: "Why do you try to use scare tactics to keep people away from Islam? It wont work, people are smarter than that!"

A: We are not using scare tactics on this website - we are going straight to the history of Muhammad himself to make our points. We're not going to use pre-filtered, biased material to do that, we're going to use all the earliest, most well attested material we have in our possession. For example, we didn't say "Aisha's goat ate the verse of stoning and other verses out of the Qur'an" without providing a reference to Ibn Majah's Book of Nikah and stating that Umar, Ibn Abbas, and Ubay ibn Ka'ab all attested to the existence of these verses in the Qur'an. We're not about to say that Muhammad hit Aisha and caused her pain without referring to Sahih Muslim #2127. We're not about to say that Muhammad was a victim of black magic without referring to Sahih Bukhari #5432. These are things found in the earliest sources. Is using information from these sources a "scare tactic"?

Q: "Muslim scholars consider your quotations from Islamic history to be weak - why don't you see that?"

A: We do see that - we don't care. People have been biased throughout history. Of course Muslims would say the sources which make Muhammad look good are strong, and the others are weak. This is natural - no need to get defensive. People want to make their prophet look good, even subconsciously. That's why all historians everywhere do the opposite of what Muslim historians do; they take traditions that sound biased and give them less weight, and they take traditions which do not leave any room for bias and give them more weight. That's one reason why we believe that Muhammad thought he was a victim of black magic, that he delivered verses of the Qur'an from Satan, and that he was suicidal when he became a prophet. What Muslim would make these things up? Yet we find all these accounts scattered throughout the earliest sirah literature.

Q: "Why do you put up links to videos of violent or deceptive Muslims? Why not focus on the good ones?"

A: While we love all Muslims, including the loving ones, we certainly detest the actions of the violent and deceptive ones. And we would write those off as being odd cases if it weren't for the fact that most of what they are doing can be found in the person of Muhammad. To take the cake, the "violent" or "deceptive" Muslims often proclaim boldly that Muhammad is the reason for their actions! It behooves all peace-loving and honest people, then, to denounce their actions and the source of their actions.

We don't focus on the love of good Muslims because we have no issue with them. We're not a website called "Praising Muslims" -- we're Answering Muslims, and we're providing an answer to the puzzling conduct of many people out there who are devout Muslims. If we are asked "Why are these Muslims murdering cartoonists/rhetoricians over their portrayals of Muhammad?" we will answer the question: because that's what Muhammad did, according to the earliest Muslim literature.

Q: "But you guys are so full of hate!"

A: No, we're really not. We love Muslims. We continually pray that they will receive the full love of God, that they will come into loving relationships with everyone, and that we will enjoy fellowship throughout eternity. These are the kinds of things Christians have been taught in their scripture to desire for their enemies. Have you ever heard the authors of this website say anything this hateful:

Surely the vilest of animals in God's sight are the non-Muslims.
(Compare with Surah 8:55)

How perverse are the non-Muslims!
(Compare with Surah 9:30)

Those with Muhammad are ruthless against the disbelievers
(Compare with Surah 48:29)

These are hateful attitudes, clearly antithetical to the ones Christians have. So if you want to call us hateful and take issue with us, please take issue with Allah for his hatefulness first, which is truly egregious.

Q: "Why do you link to such biased websites?"

A: What, you mean the Muslim websites? We link to Muslim websites because we want to be fair and honest. We're one of the few Muslim-Christian dialogue sites that link to the opposing side, giving everyone a fair shake. We also are one of the few sites that let them post freely on our comment boards.

Q: "You are Islamophobes!"

A: That's simply not true. David befriended me (Nabeel) while I was still Muslim. I used to be Muslim, and all my relatives and many of my friends are still Muslim. We enjoy the company of Muslims, be they Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, Qur'an only, etc. We do not discriminate in our love. Thus we are hardly afraid of Islam. We are ready to dive into Islamic history and thought exactly because we are not afraid, but rather willing to get our feet wet in order to share Love and Life with our Muslim friends. Yes, at times the conversations may get heated and frustrations may be vented, but these are the expected difficulties of sharing our faith. We truly harbor no hatred towards anyone, but we are strongly opposed to any falsehood which promotes violence and suppression of civil rights. This is not Islamophobia.

In sum, we love Muslims, and we hate all things that detract from the glory of the One, True God. So we shower our love on Muslims while fighting tooth and nail against all the lies and falsehood that keep them away from loving God. That's our attitude, and that's why we do what we do.

May God bless us all with his love and destroy the shackles that might bind us. May we serve Him with humility and dedication. In Jesus' precious name, amen.

The Wall Street Journal: Muhammad on the High Seas

I don't know if I agree with this article, but it certainly is worth thinking about. Here's a snippet:

According to Boston University's World Religion Database, the Somali population is 99% Muslim, and the last time the U.S. was menaced by piracy, in the late 18th century, the so-called Barbary pirates of north Africa also operated out of Muslim havens. For those who know something about Muhammad and the origins of Islam, more than coincidence is at work: Religion, it turns out, should be factored into the piracy problem. Click here for the rest

Answering Muslims Turns 100,000!

A couple of days ago, AM reached the 100,000 visits mark. Thanks to all our visitors--Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc.--who make this a fun site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Western Diplomats Walk Out On Ahmadinejad Speech

The United States, Israel, Germany, Canada, Australia, and other countries boycotted a UN summit to "fight racism," because everyone knew that Muslim countries were going to use the meeting as an Israel-bashing fest. Muslim leaders wasted no time proving them right, and delegates from several attending countries walked out during Ahmadinejad's hate-filled speech.

I'm glad Western diplomats are finally showing some signs of a backbone, and I hope it's clear to everyone that when Muslim leaders call for meetings against hatred, they're really calling for hatred against Israel. Taqiyya anyone?

Was Jesus Crucified -- Ehteshaam Gulam vs. David Wood

I will be trying to post a camcorder version of the debate here within the next 24 hours, but in the meantime I'll go ahead and give my sentiments. I wont provide the details of the debate; Locrian has provided them on the previous post with his review.

I'd like to start off by saying that I like Ehteshaam. He seems to be a sincere young man who is defending Islam from a true desire to honor God. Kind of like me a few years ago. The problem he seems to be having is the same problem I had: trying to defend Islam forces you to espouse horrid arguments, logically fallacious conclusions, and turn to poor scholarship.

For example, Gulam has two strong influences: Richard Carrier and Nadir Ahmed. I'm not saying this as a slight, this is what Gulam has admitted and it's apparent in his arguments. Because of these influences, his arguments suffered tremendously. Carrier advances the idea that Paul believed in a spiritual resurrection as opposed to a bodily resurrection, and this fallacious understanding permeated Gulam's position like a cancer. Even when David provided direct quotations from Paul to the contrary (e.g Romans 8:11), Gulam would not attempt to respond to David, preferring to instead reiterate his point. He ended up reiterating this exact point, without addressing David's response, at least 4 times.

This is where a debater can lose serious points with the audience. If he does not engage his opponent's argument, but simply repeats himself again and again, it does a few things:

1 - It makes him appear like he doesn't understand the argument

2 - It makes him look insincere

3 - It strongly implies that his argument is weak

4 - It gives the impression that the argument is being made from an emotional basis, or some other non-intellectual grounding

Other than this flaw, it appeared that Gulam simply wasn't aware of what David was going to say. A debater should really attempt to read his opponent's work, especially if it's as easily accessible as website blog posts. This was Gulam's first debate, so this faux pas is understandable. I look forward to seeing him improve in this regard before his next debate.

Overall, I think David won this debate handily, but this is hardly a surprise considering the topic. In addition, I think Ehteshaam should reconsider writing his book for now - I think he saw today that he needs to do more research and he has a lot to learn before becoming an expert. I pray that God will work in his heart, leading him to consistently applied criteria with Islam and Christianity. I also pray that he will be honest in his investigations, allowing Christianity to defend itself before closing himself off to it.

That's all I got for now. I'll try to post the debate soon. Cheers,

-Nabeel

Opening Statements

Rebuttals and Crossfire

Conclusions and Questions

Debate in Michigan this Sunday, April 19th

*****UPDATE***** ADDRESS CHANGE BELOW!!!

"Did Jesus Die by Crucifixion?"

Ehteshaam Gulam of

www.answering-christian-claims.com

vs.

David Wood of

Acts 17 Apologetics

Sunday, April 19th

Calvary Church of Romulus

11338 Ozga Road
Romulus MI 48174
734-941-0236

Click here for a map, and here for the church's website.

UPDATE: Debate starts at 4 PM

Let us know you're coming, and we'll reserve you a spot.

Also, we'll probably be going out to dinner afterwards,

so come hang out with us!

Ehteshaam Gulam is a committed Muslim, a researcher of comparative religion, a historian, and a student of Eastern Michigan University. He is currently working on his first publication, "From Christianity to Islam".

It'd be great to see some of you guys there. Please pray for God's victory through His servants this weekend!

*****UPDATE***** We had the wrong church and address in the original post. It's been corrected above.

Insights from the Ehrman vs. White Debate

Earlier this year, James White debated Bart Ehrman on "Can the New Testament be Inspired in Light of Textual Variations". The debate is relevant to this website on two counts: 1 - The topic of New Testament reliability is relevant to any Muslim-Christian apologetic dialogue, and 2 - Muslim apologists love quoting Bart Ehrman's perspective to defend their points of view.

During the crossfire period, Dr. White asked Dr. Ehrman a couple questions which I think are quite revealing and will provide a better lens through which we should see Ehrman's position regarding the New Testament.

White: You discussed the length of time that exists between the writing of Paul’s letter to the Galatians and the first extant copy, that being 150 years. You described this time period as “enormous”. That’s a quote. Could you tell us what term you would use to describe the time period between, say, the original writings of Suetonius, or Tacitus, or Pliny and their first extant manuscript copies?

Ehrman: Very enormous... ginormous. Ginormous doesn’t cover it. (For) the New Testament we have much earlier attestation than for any other book from antiquity.

This is a very revealing quotation. Despite Ehrman's outspoken claims of being unable to be absolutely sure of the text of the New Testament, he has unvoiced claims that we must be less sure of all other books from antiquity! To paraphrase Ehrman: You name it, if it's a book from antiquity it is less reliable than the New Testament. That's Ehrman's position.

At another point in the crossfire, Dr. White asks just how different Ehrman's critical edition of the New Testament would be from the Bibles we have. He asks:

White: Peter Williams of Cambridge suggested that if you were to edit an edition of the Greek New Testament using all your own decisions regarding textual variants, then it would differ less from the Nestle-Aland UBS platform than the Textus Receptus does. Would you agree?

Ehrman: Yes.

What Ehrman is essentially agreeing to is that his critical edition of the Bible, the one with all his changes and insertions and deletions, would be less different from today's New American Standard Bible than the King James Version!

But is this what Muslim apologists should be gleefully quoting in debates? The New Testament is the most well attested book from antiquity? That Ehrman's NT would be in between a New American Standard and a King James? No! What Muslim apologists need is a position which says "Jesus never claimed to be God. The evidence says he only ever just claimed to be a prophet! And he never died on the cross, it just appeared that way." Muslim apologists need an entirely different Bible for their arguments to be strong, and that's just not what their getting.

The position that Ehrman takes actually strengthens the Christian point of view: even the most vociferous scholars against New Testament reliability agree that the New Testament is extremely well attested and what was originally said can best be found among the most popular Bible versions of today.

Charges Dropped against Muslims Who Raped 13-Year-Old Christian

ISTANBUL, April 10 (Compass Direct News) – Police have declared three Pakistani men innocent of raping a 13-year-old Christian girl despite eye witness accounts and medical evidence indicating their guilt. At a hearing in Nankana Sahib district court on April 3, police from the Pakistani town of Sangla Hill, 64 miles from Lahore, cleared 40-year-old Mohammed Shahbaz, 30-year-old Waqas Sadiq and 25-year-old Yousaf Sadiq of accusations of raping and threatening Ambreen Masih. Shahbaz was the only suspect to attend the hearing, which was initially called to discuss terms of his pre-arrest bail. But Judge Ijaz Hussan Awan said he couldn’t set terms for bail if police didn’t want to arrest or detain him. “In Pakistan it has always been like this – the wealthy person can approach the police and change the course of an investigation,” said prosecuting attorney Akbar Durrani. “Regarding Christians, they cannot put any pressure on the police for a fair investigation.” SOURCE.

Marital Rape in Afghanistan

KABUL - A key backer of an Afghan law that critics say legalizes marital rape and rolls back women's rights rejected an international outcry as foreign meddling on Saturday and insisted the law offers women many protections.

The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse, and regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.

"It is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire," the law says. READ MORE.

Another Quranic Deficiency Mentioned in Bukhari

For those of you who have been following this blog since the end of last year, you may have noticed that the topic of Qur'anic preservation has been of utmost interest to me. As a Muslim, I had been utterly convinced that the Qur'an today is exactly the words that Muhammad had received from Allah. And, at least beyond the source of the words, I thought that the evidence was so strong that no one would even consider disagreeing.

Then I studied. I heard about Ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Kab, the Uthmanic edition, Kitab al-Masahif, Aisha's goat, etc. All of that stuff has been outlined already on this website. Since my Muslim days, I've done a complete 180 on my position of Qur'anic textual preservation. I believe that there is no possible way to be confident that these are the words Muhammad told the scribes to write. I believe that it is highly likely that much of it is well preserved, but I think it is even more likely that some parts are lost and there's no reason to think that today's Qur'an has even the correct number of surahs, let alone the exact words it should.

Not too much of the information we have drawn from concerning Quranic preservation has come from Bukhari. The verse outlining the top Qur'an scholars does, the burning of the manuscripts does, and the verse of rajm does. Most of our other evidences are from the rest of the sahih sitah. But we have been informed of another one from Sahih Bukhari. It reads:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever."  Sahih Bukhari, Vol 6, Book 527

Here we see another indication that one of Muhammad's top teachers of the Qur'an, one of the ones Muhammad himself said we should turn to if we are to learn the Qur'an, says that he heard Muhammad reveal a verse that others have left out of the Qur'an.

Now we can look at this one of two ways:

1. Ubay was right about this verse, and it was left out of the Qur'an mistakenly
2. Ubay was wrong about this verse, and Muhammad did a poor job picking his top teachers (especially if, as Muslims usually purport, there were many huffaz at that time who could have corrected his false understanding)

So it seems we have a dilemma. Either the Qur'an is incorrect for sure, or Muhammad did a poor job choosing his top teachers and there's no way of knowing how correct the Qur'an is. In fact, this has been the conclusion here for months, this last evidence only continues to strengthen our conclusion.

What is not an option? The perfect preservation of the Qur'an.

Frivolous Post

Hey everyone - guess what? Today is David's birthday! He's 33! Let's all wish him a happy birthday, before he deletes this post :-)

Debates in May

Hello everyone! I'm back from my overseas medical missions trips, and it's time for some good debatin'!

It seems that there may be a series of debates happening in May here in Virginia. This is far from solidified, but David mentioned he thinks we should have some, and I got a call from California today requesting that we hold a couple as well.

My primary question for you: which topics about Islam should be debated? I'm still looking forward to debating Quranic textual integrity - I haven't seen one on that topic yet.

My secondary question for you: which topics about Christianity should be debated?

We'll try to get recordings and put them up on youtube and on our acts17 page, so everyone will be able to see them. Let us know - your say so matters and this is the time to give us requests!

Muslim Scientists Debate whether the Earth Is Flat and whether the Sun Is Smaller than the Earth

Notice which Muslim scientist is appealing to the Qur'an for support.