Monday, March 26, 2012

Eric Allen Bell vs. Nadir Ahmed: "Is Islam Inherently Violent?"

Eric Allen Bell learned only recently that Islam isn't as peaceful as the media would like us to believe (and Eric was part of the media trying to convince us that "Islamophobia" is the real problem in the West). Nadir Ahmed has been trying to revive his debate career after a series of defeats, so he challenged Eric to a debate. They debated the topic "Is Islam Inherently Violent?" on The Jamie Glazov Show.

Eric Allen Bell vs. Nadir Ahmed: "Is Islam Inherently Violent?" from Eric Allen Bell on Vimeo.

Nadir has had debates on similar topics with me (click here to watch) and with Sam Shamoun (click here to watch).


Anonymous said...

Ahhhhh nadie messed up again he forgets to mention that Lot's daughters intoxicated him. seriously the amount of taqiya is entertaining

sara said...

"The prophet may the police be called upon him" loool that's a good one. Nadir needs to be banned from debating.

agrammatos said...

A very brief overview of a narrow segment of Middle Eastern recent history:

A common misconception, which Nadir by his own words embraces, continually fueled by mischaracterizing terminology is the so-called "occupied territories". A more correct term would be "liberated territories". Why? Well,... the following is undeniable history...

In 1925 (IIRC the precise year), the predecessor of the United Nations, viz. the League of Nations, set aside non-national land as a homeland for the Jews. In this land, the naive intent was to have the Jews to peacefully co-exist with the peace loving, tolerant Arabs. The Jews, after the ancient Canaanites, were the inhabitants of that geographical region from approximately 1400BCE to AD70 with some of the poorer Jews remaining even after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and scattering of the *nation* of Israel. Arabs only entered the land approx. 700 years later. Even during the time of the Ottoman Empire which fell as part of German defeat in World War I, there was no national identity in Palestine - it was an Ottoman Turk occupied territory - but "occupied" nontheless.

Of all of the land originally set aside for the purpose of a national homeland for the Jews, only ~30% was in Israel's possession in 1948 - the entire region of the TransJordan was not as the League of Nations did not have the stomach to deed that land to Israel as the Balfour Declaration had originally specified and the League originally agreed to. A very small part of that 30% was the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Eastern quarter of Jerusalem (Jerusalem was supposed to be a jointly utilized city by Jews, Christians, and Muslims as all three placed special value there as a holy city).

In May 1948 there was no "nation" of Palestine, there were no occupied territories. In May 1948, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Eastern quarter were part of Israel (but not the Golan Heights). Upon announcing independence and the formation of the nation of Israel in May 1948, Israel was promptly set upon by six armed forces - not being sufficiently, militarily powerful, Israel lost to Arab occupation the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and also the Eastern quarter of Jerusalem. Those "territories" as they are now called were temporarily lost from the nation of Israel and were now occupied by Arabs and under Arab control.

Only 19 years later in 1967, after a war lasting six days, were those three "territories" freed from the Arab invaders and restored to Israeli national identity and control.

Since that time, 45 years have elapsed. What I've always found curious is why "snap the line", so to speak, 45 years ago to 1967 when the control of those territories changed hands? Why not go back just a bit further, less than half those number of 45 years to just 19 years earlier to 1948 when Israel originally controlled those areas? If Arabs today have a supposed claim to those "territories" after 45 years, why didn't the Jews have a claim (in 1967) after only 19 years when existing international law recognized such? Sounds rather arbitrary to me.

A major part of this problem for the West is the intentionally ignorant Western media and whatever historically false agenda they espouse as well as the mindless western sheep who swallow hook, line, and sinker (sorry for the mixed metaphors) the politically correct party line the lying liberal media serves up. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is still, in the final analysis, ignorance.

Nadir has another popular misconception concerning so-called "Palestinian refugees" also fueled by the intentional??? ignorance of liberal American media. I may deal with that misconception in another post.

agrammatos said...

Later in his debate, Nadir, also vomits out more nonsense - this time concerning another poster boy of the Western lying liberal media - the so-called "Palestinian refugees". When Israel was attacked by six armed forces upon announcing the formation of the *modern* nation of Israel in May 1948, the Arab inhabitants of Israel were threatened with death. No,... not by Israel, but by the genocidal Arabs from the invading forces. Basically, they were told that if they did not either flee their homes and land in Israel, or rise up in arms with the rest of the Arab nut cases invading Israel, they would be considered by the invading forces as Arab supporters of Israel and would be killed once Allah granted to the Arab invaders victory over the nation of Israel and its Jewish citizens. Most of those Arabs fled their homes and lands rather than face the wrath of their fellow Arabs' bloodlust. They were never forced from their lands by Israel or the Jews - this is an undeniable fact of history.

Well, when the impotent Allah was unable to grant victory to no less than six armed forces over the tiny, newborn nation of Israel with its then picayune military basically lacking in tanks and planes, those who had fled were left without a home and a land. One would think that the Palestinian refugees, being of the same blood, language, and religion as their fellow Arabs in the lands surrounding Israel, would have found open arms and a warm welcome from their fellow Arabs and welcomed into their lands. Instead their fellow Arabs largely treated them with contempt, keeping them in refugee camps and not allowing them to integrate into their society and nations. Jordan was the most welcoming until much more recently in the later 20th century, when Jordan came under fire from other Arab nations for welcoming Palestinian refugees into their national identity. Why? Jordan in so doing weakened the dishonest Arab cause by reducing the number of Palestinian refugees living in abject poverty within the Arab nations as refugees. Nothing but sheer hypocrisy of the vilest sort by those Arab individuals and nations. They deflect their own reprehensible mistreatment of Palestinian refugees by vomiting up sow's dung out of their mouths in the form of diatribes and accusations against Israel (which admittedly does have some of its own issues in this regard) all the while ignoring their own crimes against their fellow Arab Muslims - so much for loyalty.

Personally, I feel that any surviving Palestinian Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 ought to be allowed back into Israel. Why not? They didn't take up arms against Israel. I, personally, can't blame them for betting the odds and fleeing rather than losing their lives and having their entire families slaughtered as their fellow Arab Muslims had promised to do after their hoped for victory over Israel. I can't blame them for trying to save their lives. However, to make sure that only those who had fled homes and lands in 1948 and have some claim to homes or lands that they out of fear left behind, they must first still be alive (not very many are after 64 years have elapsed), and must also show unquestionable documentation that they were in fact inhabitants of those homes or parcels of land in 1948. Very few or even none will be able to do so for obvious reasons. This may sound unreasonable, but there needs, IMO, to be protection against "voter fraud", so to speak. I don't think that we can trust that taqiyya will allow them to just speak the truth (I was born at night, but not last night). Let them establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they who are still living are one of those living at the time who fled and that they had a some type of "legal" claim to a particular home or parcel of land in 1948 and I would urge Israel to allow them back in if they can prove that they haven't subsequently committed or actively supported any crimes against Israel.

Joshua and Caleb Ministries said...

Great job Eric!!!

Arno said...

I take Nadir on face value, but I do think the debate was done in poor taste.

I am a fan of Robert but I cannot but think that Nadir got one over him. The moderator ~ Jamie, should be able to silence the speaker(Robert) if he oversteps his boundary (shut off the mic.).
Slander is a common element. Deal with it in a controlled civilised manner that proves you have the fortitude to engage in debate.

Even as a host/moderator he should not get involved in the debate. The questions he raised should have been privy to Eric.

No matter how it was intended, the debate came over as three-against-one, which detracted from the issue discussed, if anything it proved that Islam alone is not 'violent/facetious'.

I saw the debate between David and Nadir, and although it was like arguing against a brick wall, much more civilised, and served the purpose of debate immensely more.

Anonymous said...

Consensual pedophilia wow Nadir ... that is so weird. And with Lot, he was not a prophet for us and he was the one molested. Again, anachronism.

Ken said...

How do Muslims justify the Hadith, Sahih Muslim, book 8, chapter 22, no. 3371 ? (It was shown on the slide show during the debate in the video)

Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

How do Muslims explain that one?

Kangaroo said...

Poorly conducted debate 3v1 and all they could do was produce red herrings.

Michael Schueckler said...

A few points:
1) The moderator is terrible. He is debating against Ahmed when he should let Bell do the work.
2) Bell did well by pointing out Ahmed's methods of errors.
3) Bell should have used sources and quotes to back up claims. Saying, "You can find them everywhere isn't a good argument."
4) Bell has to learn how to debate well.
5) Ahmed has learned well in how to use bad debate techniques.
6) Overall useless debate unless you just like a lot of heat.

failedatheist said...

That debate was messy.

Billy said...

I listened to the 1-hour show live and the following is the gist of it:

Eric: Mo raped a little girl
Nadir: Christianity is bad
Eric: You think I am a Christian?
Nadir: Whoops, that strategy isn’t working
Nadir: It does not say rape in the hadith; it was consensual.
Eric: So you agree Islam allows consensual pedophilia between 51 year old men and 6 year old little girls?
Nadir: I am gonna hang up the phone

Michael Schueckler said...

Final note:
The title of the debate was poorly covered by either side.

Bell should have focused on the source of the inherent violence (the Qur'an) instead of going down other rabbit trails. Though the 9 year old rabbit trail does contain violence I don't think it's the meat of the argument that could have been used.

Ahmed's biggest problem was in trying to defend Islam by saying that Christianity is just as bad.

Maybe he went this route because he knew that Bell, being not a Christian, would ignore this point considering he doesn't feel obliged to defend Christianity.

But let's look at this argument. Suppose Christianity was just as violent. How does that make Islam any less inherently violent? It doesn't. At best, it makes it comparable to another violent religion. At worst, it just makes them both look violent.

This is Islam's best defense against the claim that it isn't inherently violent?

Not very convincing.

Deleting said...

Wretched Radio posted a clip talking about a british guy who was held in a somalian jail and what happened to it.
The clip is in the green box in the middle of the site and it says 'the religion of peace??'
This is as of today (3/26/12)

Kufar Dawg said...

Before the muslimes left Israel en mass in '48' some of them sold their lands and properties to the Jews, not out of the goodness of their heart, but because they figured after the "Arab" armies annihilated the Jews they would get their land back for free.

If someone is talking right of return for the muslo-nazi bastards into Israel why don't we discuss the fact that some million Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the muslo-nazi states of the Mid-East (e.g. Iraq, Egyptistan, Syria, Tunisia, Libya), often without any compensation whatsoever for the lands and properties they left behind.

Baron Eddie said...

Mr. Eric Allen Bell forgot about the Bacha Bazi ...

Deleting said...

David can't you teach Nadir to debate or something. Eric totally owned him here.

I love that Eric is seeing the truth of islam and speaking up.

Davidsmountain .^. said...

It ISN'T "Islamophobia", if Islamic doctrine (jihadi training manuals) really do advocate the eternal declaration of war against Christians, Jews and non-Muslims, FOREVER!

Anonymous said...

Ok, I'm confused is Nadir Ahmed a muslim scholar or
Muslim comedian?

Davidsmountain .^. said...

Immigration is infiltration, jihad is already here. 9/11

curly said...

Hey David Wood,
i like to email you, so I want to show you something... what is your email address?

D335 said...

NA : "Christianity taught to sleep with your own daughters, see prophet Lot"

MUAHAHAHAHAH LMAO, Lot's a prophet........ ROFLMAO

Wait, who is the prophet that actually rapes?


Anonymous said...

Idk but everytime I think about this "debate" I really want to laugh out loud. Nadir's comedy routine is unforgettable.

agrammatos said...


Many thanks for the reminder about the selling of the land - i had forgotten that historical fact. Combine your point with the two points on the same sub-topic in my post and even fewer have any legal or ethical right whatsoever to "return".

agrammatos said...

Forced Conversions of religious minority women in Pakistan immediately followed by "Marriage".

news dot yahoo dot com slash forced-conversions-hike-pakistan-minorities-fears-165007082 dot html

Radical Moderate said...

Wow listing to this guys opening statement and he has got NADIR DOWN lol

andy bell said...

How do I get this hour of my life back?

Nadir Ahmed claims that this was a circus?

Yeah, well when a clown like him is involved in these things......

Walter said...

I think Nadir did rather well for Nadir; mostly due to the other fellow being unprepared compared to most of the serious debaters I've. Not once during the whole debate did he attack the audience/listeners for any reason as he did during Q&A in his debate with Dr. James White. (Around 1:27 or so in the full cut)

Nor did he allege the existence of shadowy Christian organizations that were telling people not to debate him because he's such a towering intellect.

Cristo Te Ama said...

I just find out i can be a Muslim schollar, you just need to say "there is any proof" even when you are quoting the QURAN!! "you havent proved anything" Even when you have made a perfect statement, and if it doesn't work you can change the subject "let's talk about star and bugs" haha i don't usually laugh at ppl but Nadir..... you made my day haha

Cristo Te Ama said...

One question, it's kinda off topic, but when you say "red Herring" what do you mean? like it's non important?

Sorry i'm Spaniard and i have some difficulties when you use this kind of expressions...

Anonymous said...


A red herring fallacy is committed when a person deliberately dodges a question and attempts to trick you into changing the subject.

Anonymous said...


Google " fallacies handlist" they are great to know especially when dealing with atheists and muslims.

search 4 truth said...

@ Cristo

Its a debating tactic. Muslims use every kind of false debating tactic the cant to win an argument. A red herring is a misleading statement that takes people away from the intended topic.

Like when Muslims get cornered they will bring up another topic because they know they are cornered You can alost sense their relief when it works!

All Muslims have are lies, logical fallacies and deflections! Many of the muslims on this site use multi false debating tactics. And if all else fails. they wont respond and then come back later and say they attained victory! Like Samatar and Kangaroo! They cant grasp the concept of intellectual integrity!

But then they pop up when they think things cooled down and people have forgot how they lied previously! Peace!

Haecceitas said...

This is actually not the entirety of the program. Most of the places where the host Jamie Glazov participated in the discussion were edited out, as were the comments by the co-host Robert Spencer. It was a very chaotic and farcical program in the original format. I have to admit that Nadir was quite skilled in using the situation to his advantage. Perhaps he should be granted a Honorary Doctorate in Al Taqyia studies.

Cristo Te Ama said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

@Search for truth

Thanks a lot, then the whole debate was a red herring from Nadir, he was talking about Christianity as if the topic were "is Christianity and Islam equaly violent" or something like that.

livingengine said...

Eric is a New Age Hollywood fraud.

With the murder of Ambassador Stevens as a backdrop, Eric went on a publicity stunt to draw attention to himself, and then solicit money from people.

This went on from Sept. until Nov. of 2012 when he abruptly changed course, and blamed Christians for his turn around.

Recall that when Eric first arrived he needed help from us because his whole world was collapsing due to his stand against Islam.

Remember, he had to sell his car, his family stopped talking to him, his professional contacts weren't answering his calls.


Then less than a year later, he announces he doesn't need you, and curses your god.

So, what happened? He discovered Pat Robinson? I doubt that.

His fraudulence was becoming obvious. There is no fatwa on Eric Allen Bell, there is no bounty for Eric Allen Bell, he has never been under FBI protection, and there are no calls for his death in Pakistani newspapers.

Yet, this was the basis for his appeals for money during the months of September through November of last year. This is fraud.

Eric knew he always had a cushion to fall back on - his New Age fraud, Globalone.

At Globalone, Eric will sell you the New Age.

Eric endorses, and promotes the Ramtha infomercial "What the Bleep", and the work of Dr. Emoto, John Hagelin, Deepak Chopra, and Gregg Braden, "A Course in Miracles", remote viewing, the Institute of Noetic Science, zero point energy, "Law of Attraction".

It's all there at Globalone; well known New Age scams of long standing. Globalone is where he gets his money; these are the people, and things he admires.

He is a minor New Age Hollywood con man, who showed up less than a year after Anders Breivik.

There will be other attempts to infiltrate the counter jihad movement, and discredit it.