Sunday, May 29, 2011

Jamal Badawi vs. Robert Morey: Is the Qur'an the Word of God?


characterbuilder said...

Listen to Dr. Morey's answer to the moderators question at the very end of the debate.

It is brillant.

Question for David or others). have you read Morey's book on the Trinity. If so what are your impressions?

Anthony Rogers said...

Dr. Morey's book on the Trinity is classic, vintage stuff.

FYI, part of Morey's book can be found online here.

Sam said...

This was one of Badawi's most embarrassing debate performances I have ever seen. It is obvious that Morey managed to put him in a corner which Badawi didn't like. One could see that Badawi was quite angry and became quite unglued by Morey bringing up such humiliating teachings of Muhammad which no sane, rational person would ever accept.

This forced Badawi to lie through bis teeth in order to defend the such irrational teachings of Muhammad such as Adam being 90 feet tall, satans staying in one's nose overnight, Jews being transformed into rats etc.

We have already exposed Badawi's lies and deliberate misinformation on issues such as Haman, crucifixion during the time of Pharaoh, Muhammad's claim that orgasms cause a child to look either like his father or maternal uncle etc., in the following articles and rebuttals:

Now that these debates are finally online I intend by Christ's grace to provide further rebuttals so as to expose more of Badawi's lies and deceit.

Sam said...

BTW, for those interested, here the links where you can read the notes that Dr. Robert Morey used in his debates against Dr. Jamal Badawi:

Martin said...

This article has some overwhelming new evidence that the Qur'an is not the word God:

Dhu’l Qarnayn and the sun controversy in the Qur’an: New evidence

Dk said...

I actually just watched this debate via Sam's fanpage. I came on here to see if there had been any more "modern" debates, but apparently not.

Anyway I disagree with Sam. While I enjoyed Morey's opening presentation, he definately had time to expose Badawi and didn't do a brilliant job. But atleast he made a case. Badawi as expected debates as a masterful deceptionist (if I may coin it). And seeing the Muslim caveman audience is laughable. They appear to be more interested in winning a military battle than spend 5 minutes actually seriuosly thinking about criticism of their beliefs.

Watching this debate also made me see how far muslim/christian dialogue has come throughout the years. Sam Shamoun would annilhate Jamal much more brutually than Morey did. And time periods shouldn't be 40/50 minutes, time for interaction and rebuttals is so important.

Lastly I think Morey could have been more precise clarifying his premises and conclussion from the start, as at times I got lost.

Also a fundamental defect in Morey's argumentation which the moderator at the end pointed out is: Even if all his premises and conclusions are true (the hadith is not a reliable source therefore we don't know about the real historicity behind the Quran), as Morey's answer pointd out this is IRRELEAVNT in terms of whether the actual content and book itself is "Divine Truth". So he should have used a different argument. Good job moderator for doing Badawi's job for him. Good job Morey for showing how stupid Islamic beliefs in general are.

Nazam said...

I had a quick skim read. Here's a quick response to one of the new "upgraded" arguments. The fellow states that in a subsequent verse, God says "Wa ka-dhaalika..."-- "and that's how it was" or "that's how it went". The problem, he says, is that Allah is confirming the details of the narrative, which includes the sun setting in the muddy pool. In other words, it's not just Dhu'l Qarnayn's perception of how the sun is moving down into a muddy pool, but it is Allah confirming that these are indeed the facts of the story and how it happened.

Now responding to this specific argument is quite easy, imo. Allah is confirming that this is what transpired, including the fact that Dhu'l Qarnayn perceived the sun to be setting in a muddy pool! Quite simple, I think. Allah is not confirming the setting of the sun in the water; rather He is confirming that this was how Dhu'l Qarnayn perceived what he saw.

Dk said...

Nazam, you are still a Muslim? C'mon be serious! What good arguments does Islam have left? Why are you still Muslim? Honestly?

"Then he followed a road Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom WE HAD APPOINTED NO SHELTER THEREFROM. AND WE KNEW ALL CONCERNING HIM".(Pickthall)

As you can see Allah is PART of the literal story, confirming the fact that they needed shelter because he had *reached* the place of the *rising* sun, this isn't merely the perspective of Dhu'l Qarnayn that Allah is confirming, Allah is saying here is what happened, oh and I didn't do anything for them, I didn't ordain it. This means all the facts of the story are literal facts. Everything Dhu'l Qarnayn is seeing and experiencing Allah is confirming actually took place, and was himself part of this story.

Check this out too:

Sam said...

Even though DK did a great job exposing Nazam I still wanted to post the following hadith from Muhammad which proves that he erroneously thought that the sun literally, physically sets in a spring of water:

(3991) Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: IT SETS IN A SPRING OF WARM WATER (hamiyah). (Prof. Ahmad Hasan, Sunan Abu Dawud – English Translation With Explanatory Notes [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, Publishers, Lahore, 1984], Volume III. Chapters 1338-1890, XXV. Kitab Al-Ahruf Wa Al-Qira’at [Book of Dialects and Readings Of The Qur’an], Chapter 1498, p. 1120; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Here is another English version of this same hadith:

4002. It was narrated that Abu Dharr said: “I was riding behind the Messenger of Allah while he was on a donkey, and the sun was setting. He said: ‘Do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said: ‘Allah and his Messenger know best.’ He said: ‘IT SETS IN A SPRING OF WATER (fa innaha taghrubu fi ‘ainin hamiyah).’” (SAHIH) (English Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu Dawud Sulaiman bin Ash‘ath – From Hadith no. 3242 to 4350, ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: July, 2008], Volume 4, 29. The Book Of The Recitations And Readings Of The Qur’an, p. 375; capital emphasis ours)

Now do make sure to ay attention to the fact that this narration is classified as SAHIH or sound. Therefore, Nazam cannot claim that this is a weak narration.

Thus, Nazam must contend with the fact that his false prophet really thought that the sin physically sets in a a spring!

Now Nazam maybe you can run to your taghut Shabir and ask him to reconcile this gross error for you.

1MoreMuslim said...

Sam :

The sound narrations in Bukhari and Muslim does not include the settling in " spring of water". One of narrator Sofiane ibn Hussein is known to confuse Hadiths sometimes, Abu Dawood says that he is not a good memorizer.

By the Dr Morey is under federal investigation. Why?

Sam said...

1MoreBlackStoneKisser, Bukhari and Muslim are not the only collections which narrate sound narrations, nor do they narrate every alleged sahih hadith there is. Moreover, even al-Albani deemed this hadith from Abu Dawood as sahih.

This means you need to face reality and accept the fact that Muhammad taught that the sun literally set in a spring of water. So try spreading your lies somewhere else since we ain't buying it.

1MoreMuslim said...

Thnk you for your kind reply.
Listen , the prophet said either the wording of Sahih Muslim and Bukhari, or he said the words in Abu Dawuud. we can't believe he said them both, like you believe with Jesus. One of them is wrong, I would say that the one which is sound hadith is that of Bukhari and Muslim, because it doesn't include Sofiane Ibn Hassan, a weak narrator. But what is really hypocritical, is that you cling on the authenticity of Hadiths with you teeth, but when the same sources attest of prophecies and miracles, you dismiss them all together as fabrication, If you call me a liar because I dismissed this Hadith, why aren't you a liar by dismissing hundreds of them? Why is it that Ecclesiastes 1:5 doesn't disqualify the Bible from being the word of God?

Dk said...

1MoreMuslim, where do you get off rejecting the classifications of hadith by Islamic Scholars? They have a an entire science and methology behind ranking hadith, Abu Dawud generaally has thousands of "Sunan" reports which are the rank below Sahih.

Which Islamic scholar says "sahih" is ONLY "bukhari and muslim"?

Finally Sam quoting hadith doesn't mean he believes these are historically reliable reports, it means that he is appealing to sources Muslims in general believe are authentic, just like Muslims would appeal to the Bible for a source of authority for Christians.

1MoreMuslim honestly it looks like you are desperate by resorting to such tactics to reject this hadith.

But even IF you reject this hadith, you STILL have to deal with the verses themselves, which clearly attest the story was mean't to be literal.

Sam said...

1More, in the first place you didn't address the fact that the hadith is said to be sahih, or sound, which refutes your assertion that it contains a weak narrator. You don't classify a hadith as sound if you have questionable narrators. Secondly, your assumption is that either the narration in Bukhari and Muslim is correct or the one in Abu Dawud and Musnad Ahmad is. However, it isn't either/or, it is both and/both, i.e. both are correct as far as your traditions go. Third, what makes you think that the narrations in Bukhari and Muslim are anymore scientifically accurate? Here it is:

Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’" (36.38) (Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421:

The translator has an interesting footnote here:

The procedure of the sun mentioned in this Hadith and similar other things mentioned in the Qur’an like the prostration of the trees, herbs and stars (V. 55:6) are beyond our limited knowledge of this universe. It is interpreted that these are mentioned so because of the limited understanding of the people at that time about matters of the universe.

So do you want us to seriously believe that the sun makes a circuit beneath Allah’s throne and prostrates to him before waiting his command to return to its course? Are you seriously suggesting this is any more scientifically accurate than the one where Muhammad says the sun physically sets in a spring of water?

Fourth, I don't reject Muhammad's miracles on the basis that I don't think it was possible for him to do them. After all, the Holy Bible says that even false prophets can and will do miracles to deceive many. This means that the source of their power is not God but Satan or an evil spirit (cf. Deuteronomy 13:1-10; Matthew 24:23-25; Acts 16:16-18; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12; Revelation 13).

Rather, I reject them because they contradict the consistent and plain testimony of the Quran which says that Muhammad wasn't able to do a single miracle. For the evidence please read my article here:

Thus, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If Muhammad did do miracles then the Quran is wrong. However, if the Quran is right then the hadiths are wrong for claiming that Muhammad did.

In fact, this is precisely the reason why I accept the hadith from Abu Dawud, i.e. it perfectly agrees with the Quran! When you have both the Quran and the hadith saying that the sun sets in a spring of water then this makes it all the more likely that Muhammad really said this and therefore erroneously believed that the sun literally sets in a muddy or murky spring.

Hopefully, you will now try to address the hadith itself instead of brushing it aside as weak. Like I said, we ain’t buying it.

Sam said...

BTW, let me address 1More's canard. He mentioned Ecclesiastes 1:5, assuming that this is somehow parallel with what the Quran and Muhammad said about the sun setting in a muddy or murky spring. However, to speak of sunrise or sunset is one thing, to speak of the setting place of the sun is another thing altogether. Ecclesiastes 1:5 is no more mistaken than when meterologists today speak of the time the sun will rise or the time it will set. This is what is known as phenomenological language. There is nothing wrong in describing phenomena which we see from our vantage point, i.e., from our perspective the sun does rise and sets. However, the moment you find a metereologist speaking of the setting place of the sun, or the time when the sun sets in a muddy spring, then you should start worrying.

Sam said...

BTW, for an atheist DK is one of the best "Christian" apologists exposing Islam I know! :-)

Anthony Rogers said...

What Sam and DK said. :)

1MoreMuslim said...


But even IF you reject this hadith, you STILL have to deal with the verses themselves, which clearly attest the story was mean't to be literal.

I agree, Dhu Al Quaranayn , literally, saw the sun setting in murky waters, any problems?

Why is it that those who are fighting Islam furiously , end their lives with such disgrace and humiliation. Ergun Caner, Anis Shorroush, now it's Robert Morey.

Dk said...


See my response to Nazam.

That doesn't change a thing.

1MoreMuslim said...

To DK:

You are just exposing your misunderstanding, the verse that you are talking about, speaks about a Sun that rises in a different place than the first place where he saw the sun sets. that proves that your literal interpretation is wrong, since if people have no shelter for the sun in the rising , those who are in the setting place will be in the same situation. If the sun sets in a specific place, far away from the rising place, then those in the rising place will be in the dark.
The meaning of "No shelter" is a figurative expression , to say primitive people, who live in the open air, like animals, he went further , he encountered people who cannot understand their language.

valentin said...

This debate was very messy especially given the format and the unruly attendees.