Sunday, September 25, 2011

David Wood vs. Nadir Ahmed: "Does Christianity Promote Violence Towards Non-Christians?"

Yes, it's kind of a ridiculous question. But whenever we point out the violent passages in the Qur'an, Muslims (and many non-Muslims) respond: "Well, the Bible says the same thing!" Hence, in order to show that Christianity and Islam don't actually teach the same thing, here goes. (If you missed our debate on whether Islam promotes violence towards non-Muslims, click here.)





WhatsUpDoc said...

I don't know the purpose of this debate. I have never seen Christians attacking non Christians anywhere in world. Once in a blue moon you will see and individual will spray paint a Hindu temple or a synagog but they are condemned by all Christians.

The proof is in the pudding.

Search 4 Truth said...

I really dont think Nadir even believes what he's saying. It's the same logical fallacies and tactics every time. It would be comical if it weren't so depraved.

la theos said...

as an atheist, and having seen nadir ahmed debate before, i think he has improved a bit as far as his general approach to debate is concerned,yet as far as this debate is concerned, i think david did a better job

Editor or Nitemare said...

2 Chronicles Chapter 15 12 And they entered into the covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 and that whosoever would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.
I have explained this verse to the islamic terrorists many times before. It says that the they entered into a covenant who is they? these verses tell you. 9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin and those dwelling with them from Ephraim and Manasseh and from Simeon, for many of Israel had defected to them when they saw that the Lord their God was with them. 10 And they gathered to Jerusalem in the third month of the fifteenth year of Asa's reign.

So Judah and Benjamin and those dwelling with them from Ephraim and Manasseh and from Simeon entered into the covenant to seek their Lord. This in no way says that they go fight others who did not enter the covenant. Just as some one enters a gang or an organization and makes a pledge to follow certain things from this gang or organization and agrees to the consequence if they break this pledge. Does this mean it applies to every one in the world? certainly not. Also no where in the verse does it say children it says small or great from the men or woman meaning even if you are a priest or king you would be killed. This verse is actually talking about idol worship which the Torah commands death and this applies only to Jews. That is why G-D is happy because they swore off idol worship.

Search 4 Truth said...

Nadir is the stand up comic of apologetics He thinks he finds a strong point to make, then even though he is refuted he clings to it and will not accept the contextual and factual response.

I swear I could write a comedy about a self proclaimed scholar and apologist who fails completely and actually ends up proving his opponents statements in every debate! It would be hilarious!

TAREK said...

Dear Dr. david,
Again I can only I have my thumbs up as usual. There is no way a muslim can find a verse that promtes violence in the HOLY BIBLE. even if they fabricate one it will not have legs to stand on. Please Dr. David do post the Sam's own,and if possible Fahran Q. last debate.
Thank you very much for your great dedication.
MAY YAHWEH BLESS you and all the readers in JESUS' NAME AMEN

Baron Eddie said...

I just finished watching part 1 and I must say, David that your introduction was excellent ...

Nadir tried to emphasize that "Christians can make millions of interpretation" of that verse

He does not pick one of the millions but make his own!
by using his common sense!

That pretty much opens the door to everybody to interpret Quran as we wish ...

Would he accept that?

We all know that we can not do that ...

You know what ... I don't need to interpret Quran because it is very clear that it promotes violence by their own interpreters ...

Nadir reminded me of an old Arabian joke, and the end of this joke was "some guys were beating a rabbit and their attention is to have that rabbit say that he is a deer"

mikeyh428 said...

Wow, Nadir was completely annihilated in that debate. It was quite clear from his opening statements (which included some rebuttal elements) that he was in trouble. It's like everything that David said in response never registered with him, even when Nadir's comment was thoroughly refuted. It was also obvious from some of the chuckles heard in the audience that they saw it too.

Foolster41 said...

Wow. Watching now, and here's my thoughts as I watch.

@19:00 Antisemetism fail. He's following the same Arab/muslim line (i.e. LIE) about Isreal "occupying" or stealing land. They are not. The lie is based on the gernoicdal propaganda by Arab Muslims who have stated repeatidly they want to free palastine "From the Jordan to the sea" (i.e. genocide against Jews). I wonder is Nadir Ahmed for or against this stogan? Does he oppose HAMAS and the PA's genocidal stance? David wisely ignores his since it's off-topic, but I think he should be pressed on this.

@20:00: Off-topic and begging the question. The debate isn't about whether Christianity is true, and certinly mearly quoting verses from a competing religion is NOT concrete proof. He doesn't name any specific thing that Islam has. Christanity is wrong because it's not like Islam, therefore it is wrong.

2nd Video

@21:50 "it doesn't matter, it's peace back" nice goalpost moving there. You say the specific word matters, then when it's shown that it's mearly a translation of the same word, it doesn't matter.

@27:00 There's a difference between incorrance and comphrehention abillity. It's the second you have a problem with. The word you're looking for in "something or other" was "ARK". Not a hard word. I have no problem understanding. Perhaps it's you?

@39:50 Two Extremes fallacy. Either Christians have to be pascafists OR completely violent. Completely illogical, considering that could be just as logicaly applied to Islam as well. He doesn't give any evidence WHY this would apply to Chrisitanity and not another religion such as Islam.

@41:00 "Peace"? Whast peace? You mean paying the tax and feeling subdued? NO THANK YOU. Either Nadir is ignorant of his own scripture, or is an Islamic supremisist who approves of subjegation of non-believers.

@45:00 "calm down". falacy of false mood attributed to David. If you can't win the debate, make the other side out to be a hot head. This was false since I didn't see David once loose his temper. He made some light-hearted (but true) statements about Islam, and Nadir tries to make him look like the bad guy for doing so (as if he did something wrong).

@46:00 "Redifining", would be nice to have said that before. Of course he didn't feel like he needed to. And it's still dishonest, since the term here is being airlifted and repackaged into a religion that to which it does not belong.

@47:40 "playing with words... the golden rule" like you mean using terms in the wrong religion they don't belong? HYPOCRITE.

@48:28, on Not knowing what to follow. It's called the NEW testiment and the OLD testiment. It's not difficult. It doesn't contradict 2 Tim 2:15 at all."

One question for David. I can understand how the calls for violence were in the context of the covenents, but one issue that was pointed out to me by a non-Chrisitan was Deut 21:10-14, which is about captive slaves. It seems fairly aparent this is unwilling slaves captured and married (i.e raped) by Jewish soldiers, under the command of God. This is one issue I have been struggling with, since it's not just fighting against evil nations.

Perhaps debating with Nadir is a waste of time if he can't understand the simple arguments. (and he believes his more complicated interpretation, misusing terms like "profitable", combing with verses not yet written and chaining to another verse as "simple")

curly said...

I have do not watch these video. NO Question, I m Deaf.
"whenever we point out the violent passages in the Qur'an, Muslims (and many non-Muslims) respond: "Well, the Bible says the same thing!" I agree David Wood that it is ridiculous thinking. Israelites is only violence with offense against Canaanites, massacre over them, and claim the land. After that, Israelites is self defense that it. God let them occuplied over them because the sin of Canaanites. Israelites do not have desire for claim over the world for reign. The mission of Muslim is much different than the mission of Israelites. The mission of Muslim is all people INCLUDE NON MUSLIM in the world is SUBMIT to ALLAH.

Baron Eddie said...

After seeing the whole thing ...

I agree with "WhatsUpDoc" about the purpose of this debate.

For Nadir to be in a church debating safely proves him wrong ...

Can a Christian or Non-Muslim go in Mosque and debate Muslim like that (in Islamic country)

We all can see Muslims are living well in the West and we don't see any Christian doing those violent versus as Nadir claims ...

Let us compare that with how Christians/Non-Muslims are living in Islamic countries ...

Obviously, Nadir never lived in Islamic country or ...

Or Nadir is getting money from Islamic countries to spread these lies ...

Life is not just a debate
but living reality

Shapur II said...

Hi, this is my first post here.

First of all, you did a great Job in this Debate Mr. Wood and all debates i have seen so far, went the same way ;).
As i am not a native speaker, i hope i can express the things i want to say in the correct way.

The reason, why i am posting now is the following: I study history and protestant theology (from an historical interest, not from believing) and its a usual habit in this science to consult as much sources as possible and read them in a critical way, if you want to say something about history. I dont want to make this text very long, so i try to condense ...
The topic about the arab-conquest Nadir is referring to, with this "super cruel Adolf Hitler of that time"(something like that he did say about him) named Heracleios (Ἡράκλειος)is kind of funny, cause he is quoting only Muslim sources about him and contradicting them in a funny way.
This part of history is really not my topic and i dont know much about it - but this debate woke my interest and made me take a look at some books in my university library and i find a very different story, from what Nadir was talking about.
He is referring to the order, that all jews should be beheaded. Well, this event is ONLY mentioned in Muslim sources (written by his enemy, if you wish) and according to those sources (Al-Tabari) he gave that order, because he had a dream about a new kingdom that will rise and defeat all enemies and he misinterpreted this dream thinking it will be the jews instead of the muslim. So he gave that order to behead the jews (following the muslim sources).
Actually historians even think that Heraclios might even never have heard of Islam and really might have thought, that Islam is just a strange jewish sect - so in the end you might say, by fighting muslims, he fought jews... and the muslim want to protect the jews, so they fight against him .. and errr. well its getting confusing ;).

So far so good - the funny thing now is, that this super cruel ruler is actually referred by Ibn Kathir as: "Heraclius was one of the wisest men and among the most resolute, shrewd, deep and opinionated of kings. He ruled the Romans with great leadership and splendor."
I would call this a positive view towards this super cruel and evil Leader ... well, in those muslim sources he is also converting to islam and is a good muslim, but found opposition from his Nobles, when he wanted to spread islam - hmm well, let me think.

Following Nadirs Arguments i would think that Heracleios was a cruel ruler and nobody should like him and islam was saving the world from him.
According to the muslim sources, he was a just and piety, good ruler - and the beheading of the jews was just a misunderstanding, he actually wanted to behead the rising muslims (strange that he is a good ruler then). He even converted to islam and so in the end the muslim would have fought themselves (isnt that a sin?)
The "western" sources dont mention this beheading of jews and even suggest, that he might even thought of the muslims as being some sort of jewish sect and certainly he did not convert to islam.

I am asking myself, is Nadir and probably many other muslims taking muslim sources for historical fact and not looking at any other sources? Did they ever heard of the historical-critical method? I mean, sure, if you are a good muslim the Quran is out of question, but at least all the other sources should be taken as "normal" texts.

In the end i have to thank Nadir, because he woke my interest for that period in history and i just started to collect some literature about this topic and i will certainly start to get deeper into this topic.

Greetings from germany

Baron Eddie said...

those people disagree with Nadir

taomeano said...

You thoroughly defeated Nadir in this debate. Nadir is not intellectually honest because all he did was repeating himself over and over again. And then to totally confuse the word "found" with "fond" was very amusing to me. His whole debate was that God was "fond" of the Israelites when infact it says God was "found" as to God has gotten their attention.

This whole debate was a waste of time for David because Nadir certainly did not know what else to say to make his points. He totally misrepresented the New Testament scriptures. I feel so sorry for these moslem apologists for their total blindness to the truth.

minoria said...


Hello Foolster:

You stated:

"Deut 21:10-14, which is about captive slaves. It seems fairly aparent this is unwilling slaves captured and married (i.e raped) by Jewish soldiers, under the command of God. This is one issue I have been struggling with, since it's not just fighting against evil nations. "

In fact,this has been dealt with a long time ago since Muslims bring it up often.OK,look,:

1.Deut is part of MOSAIC LAW,and in Mosaic law there are parts that are DISPERSED but that MODIFY and CLARIFY other parts,the rabbis have long ago recognized this.

2.RAPE is forbidden in a DIFFERENT part of MOSAIC law.

3.God is not going to CONTRADICT himself in the same law.So a rabbi would apply the principle of one part of Mosaic law to another for better CLARIFICATION

minoria said...


Hello Foolster

In there is an article that makes a reference to Deut 21:10-14:

There,in Appendix I: it says:

" The question of allowed rape seems to me is not what the traditional Jewish understanding. You have to comprehend what the Heb. text says. The Hebrew for the verb "dishonor" (NIV) in v. 14 is `inah, which can mean sexual abuse. But it is used in v. 14 to describe a subsequent time, as seen in Hebrew wehayah ("and when it will happen"), which begins v. 14, when he refuses to continue to be her husband but to send her away. In that case, he can no longer treat her as a captive. The act "going into her" (v. 13) after 30 days was to become her husband.

Additional Judaistic references are found in these:
Deuteronomy [Devarim] the traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation / commentary by Jeffrey H. Tigay.
Studies in Devarim (Deuteronomy) by Nehama Leibowitz ; translated and adapted from the Hebrew by Aryeh Newman.
Sifre:a Tannaitic commentary on the book of Deuteronomy translated from the Hebrew with introduction and notes by Reuven Hammer.

The main point of this text is the compassion the Lord has on the foreign woman taken in battle. The man is not allowed to rape her, but to treat her with all the respect a wife of the covenant is due. If a Muslim reads this as rape, then he must be reading his own cultural bias into it. But that is not the Biblical understanding of a woman. What this text is saying is that even in battle, a woman was not to be raped by a Jew. If he really wanted her --- he had to marry her. And even then, he had to wait a month to let the passion wear off, and for her to get used to the new culture she was about to be committed to, and to mourn for her own father. The context of the passage is very clear, it is very easy. How has he dishonored her if he sends her away? Not because he raped her, but because she has been cast away, discarded as unwanted. Divorce was an embarrassing thing (even as it was in this country 50 years ago)."

minoria said...


Hello Foolster,

As I said one PART of MOSAIC law ClARIFIES other PARTS,it is something the rabbis noticed.

LEV 19 has LEVITICUS 19:18:

"but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD."

and LEV 19:33 says,talking about FOREIGNERS:

“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."

This is a GENERAL PRINCIPLE,so though there is a SPECIFIC context,a FOREIGNER living in ISRAEL,the RABBIS understood it had a UNIVERSAL APPLICATION,to treat foreigners outside of Israel well.

So loving them like yourselves makes RAPE wrong.

minoria said...


Hello Foolster:

Here is the Mosiac law against rape:

DEUT 22:25-27:

"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her."

minoria said...


Now Foolster,some say DEUT 22:28-29 is in favor of rape,but here is the argument it is not:


She was the daugter of King David,and she was raped by her brother and it was CERTAINLY considered wrong,so much so that David's other son ABSALOM kills his own brother.

According to the narrative, Amnon over time developed feelings for his sister so much so that he became ill over his lust for her. 2 Samuel 13:2 Amnon had a friend named Jonadab who is said to be a "crafty man" advised that Amnon pretend to be sick. Amnon did what was suggested and pretended to be sick, 2 Samuel 13:5 and asked Tamar to prepare him food. 2 Samuel 13:8 He then asked her to have intercourse with him 2 Samuel 13:11 . When Tamar objected, Amnon raped her. 2 Samuel 13:14 After the rape scene concludes, Amnon begins loathing her, and he sends her home. 2 Samuel 13:15 Tamar expresses her grief by tearing her robe and marking her forehead with ashes. 2 Samuel 13:19 She goes to her full brother Absalom, who attempts to comfort her and takes her into his home where she remained a "desolate woman." 2 Samuel 13:20 When King David, Tamar's father, hears of her rape he is angered but presumably does nothing. 2 Samuel 13:21 However, Absalom hates Amnon due to his rape of Tamar and after waiting two years Absalom has Amnon murdered 2 Samuel 13:22-29

minoria said...

Hello Shapur II

Maybe you are Persian,you have said you are not Christian,or at least not Protestant,I dont know,but if you are then it might interest you to know that it could be Firdausi,the first great Persian writer,and most probably the saviour of the language with his "Book of Kings" in the 11th century(otherwise Iran would now be 100% Arabic-speaking)could have been an apostate,since he has the last king of Persia say:"damn this time...the uncivilized Arabs who have made me a Muslim".

Firdausi in his poem is very nationalistic,even eliminating as many Arab words as possible,using almost 100% Persian words.


They were Iranian or Persian I dont know which name is preferred by the people there and they were 2 of the greatest scientists of the Muslim region.Read why one thinks they were apostates.

Ken said...

You did an excellent job of showing that Christianity does not promote violence against non-Christians.

Do you know the reference to the Hadith that Nadir kept quoting, something about "be nice to the Christians, love one another", etc. ? He never gave the exact reference.

Also, what is the difference in the different numbering systems of Hadith ? why is one (Sahih Al Bukhari volume 4, book 52, no. 196, whereas another system is
Sahih Al Bukhari 6924 ??

Is there an explanation of how to understand the different systems of referencing?

Are these the same Hadith, or slightly different ones?
I know some Hadiths are repeated.

This is the numbering system of the "Center for Muslim -Jewish Engagement" (used to be, it seems, the University of Southern California Muslim Student Association)

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah 's Apostle said, " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' and whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,' his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

There needs to be a way to find the second numbering system (when used) so we can find it in the first numbering system at the Hadith website.

Ken said...

Several times Nadir Ahmed said, "Tafsirs are not allowed as Islamic evidence", yet to bolster his point on a different issue, he quoted a couple of Tafsirs.

It was funny that N.A. kept saying 'we are supposed to fight Hitler", yet at the time of Hitler, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Muhammad Amin Al Hosseini) supported Hitler - a Grand Mufti - Mufti is an Islamic legal jurist and scholar who can issue fatwas. The whole Palestinian movement of not recognizing Israel's right to exist, even if 1948 or 1967 borders, etc. seems to be based on Al Hosseini and the Qur'an (the worst people are the pagans and Jews, Surah 5:82) and the Hadith about expelling the Jews out; and fight them until the day of resurrection and the rocks crying out, "there is a Jew behind me" - both PLO and Hamas seem to base their philosophy on Islamic doctrine and the Mufti's actions and words at the time of Hitler.

There are lots of historical pictures and evidence of Haj Amin Al Hosseini with Hitler and their friendship and agreement against the Jews, and inspecting Nazi troops, so David was right to say, "Nadir, come back to reality world".

Governments of the Allied powers fought Hitler after he first started the war, and they did have the authority to fight against evil dictators, as Romans 13:1-8 teaches. It is the secular or civil government, police forces, military forces that have authority to punish murderers, bank robbers, rapists, etc. NOT the church.

Doesn't Nadir understand the history of the west and why we now have separation of church and state?

The verses that David read in his opening statement were clear about the church and love your neighbor as yourself, love your enemies, and our weapons are not carnal or physical. (Matthew 5:38-48; Mark 12:29-34; John 18:36; Matthew 26:52; 2 Cor. 10:3-4; Romans 12, I Peter 2-3; and I would add Acts 1:6-8 and Ephesians 6:12 to that.)

The first three hundred plus years shows the Christians followed those peaceful and evangelistic verses, and were persecuted.

The first three hundred of Islam were Surah 9:29, 8:39; 9:5; and the Hadith

Sahih Al Bukhari 4:52;196 (volume 4, book 52, no. 196) Mohammad said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshiped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshiped by Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah (either to punish him or to forgive him.)"

Baron Eddie said...

Hi Ken

Here is couple of videos to Mufti Muhammad Amin Al Hosseini


Foolster41 said...

Minoria: Thanks! I tried looking around and didn't find the information so detailed. The person making the argument wasn't a muslim, but what one might term a "militant aithist".

Shapur II said...

Hi minoria,

Thanks for the info. Maybe you misunderstood me and yes, my name might be misleading. I am not a Persian. I am a german, lutheran protestant - i study theology with an historical interest, not because of believe. I am not very religious ... although i honor the christian values and would call myself a lutheran protestant.
I choose my name because i was reading a book about Shapur II when i made my google account, so its just a coincidence.
My interest in the 7th century is growing now and i am interested in reading more about it. So thanks for the links, i will take a look at them now.

YaAkhi said...


The original Sahih Bukhari is numbered #xxxx in the other case it is numbered by book number i.e., Book#5 hadith #2 wtc. It's the translators numbering system, it's not present in the Arabic version.

APB said...

Great job as always David, I havnt seen you lost a debate as of now. Btw hows nabeel doing ... i keep following creed 2:6 once in while.. hope nabeel starts debating too :)

ixthus said...

There is no doubt that Christianity does not promote violence toward unbelievers..the person who asked the question 'How can God not be a God of violence when he crushed his on son'(not even close to a quote..sorry) was definitely off topic. I don't think Christians could deny that our God is violent in his judgement, the flood was pretty violent..he did say explicitly that vengence is his "not" ours. Jesus commands us to be violent toward the sin in our lives. David is right..God is the only one who has the right to be violent toward an unbeliever..we show grace because all of us (Christians) were at one time unbelievers who deserve his violence..we have no right. May we never forget that Jesus was not forced to die for us..he was obedient to the will of the Father..not a victim..a willful laying down his life for those he would call his friends.

As for Nadir..well..this debate is over.

minoria said...

Hello Foolster and Shapur:

I am glad I was of help.I have been analyzing a bit one of Shabir Ally's early debates where he says the EMPTY TOMB is a LATER INVENTION,that it is NOT in Paul.


Really,Shabir either does not know or more likely is playing tricks.It makes your stomach sick.Josephus,the Jewish historian from Palestine,tells us SPECIFICALLY that it was usual to not bury CRUCIFIED criminals but an EXCEPTION was made in JERUSALEM.

So it is true Paul in the 1 COR 15 creed(which PRACTICALLY ALL scholars,including skeptics)say is NOT by Paul but an OFFICIAL CREED of the ORIGINAL DISCIPLES of Jesus and written about 2 YEARS after Jesus' death(for example Michael Licona,a real scholar,in contrast to Shabir, is one who has stated this as being accepted by scholars),does NOT say "empty tomb" but he does say that Jesus rose from the dead.


So using LOGIC we know that according to Josephus Jesus would have been BURIED in a TOMB,as were practically all Jews in Palestine from 30 BC-70 AD,even though crucified.And that the apostles' creed therefore implicitly has an empty tomb,under the circumsances.


There is the case of the bones of a man found in a bone box in a TOMB 2,000 years ago,about 25 years old,killed around the time of Jesus,in Jerusalem also.It was discovered in 1968.

So a crucified criminal was given a burial,just like Josephus said they would do,and they found a NAIL on one of his bones,just like it appears about Jesus,he was NAILED.

So we have ARCHEOLOGICAL proof.


The Shabir debate was from around the year 2000 so his "the empty tomb is a later invention according to the EVIDENCE" comes some 30 years after the archeological evidence.I dont think he was ignorant of it in 2000,it is obvious he is no scholar at all,he PICKS and CHOOSES using NO SCHOLARLY METHODOLOGY.I have far more respect for Nadir and Osama Adallah my friends.

Ken said...


YaAkhi or David or anyone who knows:

How does one figure out how to connect the original version Sahih Al Bukhari 6924 for example to Sahih Al Bukahari Volume 4, book 52, number 192 - the system used at the website?

That is, when one gives the 6924 kind of reference, how can one find it on the web-site, that has a different numbering system?

Baron Eddie said...

Hello Ken

I was checking what you are talking about and I thought to compare that to the original Arabic tafsir ...

I will check more about this whenever I have time ...

check this out ... in Arabic they don't use headings like this

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 137:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

They have it like this

"section of what he(Mohammed) said in the toilet"

another says

"section of woman going out to pee"


"section of peeing on two piles of muds materials"

So they use nice system like what they use now in English to make it modern and scientific :-)

The above sections were from the book 4 (ablutions)

You made me curious about how they use different numbering systems in English and maybe compare that to Arabic ...

I tried to compare (Ablutions) with english stories but did not match ... I am not surprised ...

ned said...

I feel sorry for Nadir cause of the position he was trying to prove that Jesus actually was promoting aggression. I think Nadir was boggled by the earlier debate which he kept refering to. Well done brother David, God bless you and keep you.

Bartimaeus said...

Yes Nadir you toob both Antonio and I to the beach. But you got hammmered in the debate. Infact take my advice find another line of work. You embarrassed the few Muslims that were there.

Ugo Strange said...

David, I have no clue how you got through this debate without your head exploding. I've noticed Nadir always accuses his opponents of being incoherent and dodging the question, and in the accusation he's doing the exact same thing he's accusing his opponents of doing. It's sad and I'm really wondering why Muslims allow him to debate considering that he built an entire argument off of a typo and maintained it as a serious objection. God Bless you for this David. I would've lost my patience INSTANTLY.