Monday, April 30, 2012

Robert Spencer and David Wood vs. Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri on ABN Tonight!

I ended up in an interesting position recently. I believe that I can prove Muhammad's existence (beyond a reasonable doubt), but I don't believe that Muslims can prove Muhammad's existence at all. So when Anjem Choudary and Sheikh Omar Bakri wanted to face Robert Spencer in a two-on-two debate, I saw no reason not to join Robert as he teaches our Muslim friends an important lesson about the flaws in their methodology. (Robert and I will still need to face each other to see whether my methodology proves stronger than Islam's. In the meantime, Anjem and Omar are in for a rude awakening. I hope they've read Robert's book!)


If you don't get ABN via satellite, you can watch the debate live at 8:00 P.M. (EST) here.

42 comments:

Derek Adams said...

ah to be honest this wont be pretty for the Muslims, these are not exactly scholars or historians or intellectuals.

I'd much rather see the original arrangement.

Derek Adams
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

Zack_Tiang said...

Epic debate is Epic!

Haecceitas said...

Should be interesting. I hope you're also going to debate some Christian topic with these two at some point.

Lleychino said...

@ Haecceitas,
Christian topic? They don't even have any clue about Islam (if they aren't deceiving).
It annoys me to watch debates sometimes, because I don't have patience listening people who deliberately or ignorantly presenting their claims/arguments worse than forth grade students.

WhatsUpDoc said...

Should be interesting I am in.

Haecceitas said...

Lleychino,

They may be clueless about Christianity but it's better that they learn it the hard way. What annoys me is the occasional jabs that they take at Christian beliefs during debates that aren't really about Christianity.

mkvine said...

I actually missed the debate between David Wood and Robert Spencer. Can anyone fill me in, like a general review of what happened? From what it sounds like is that David was unable to demonstrate from Islamic sources that Muhammad existed, but nevertheless could show he did exist using the tools of historical criteria. If there's a link, I would appreciate it too. Thanks.

gabriella oak said...

" I hope they've read Robert's book. " LOL.

The ONLY thing Anjem Choudary reads is the British tabloids to see if he's in them.

apran said...

I think the title should be Robert Spencer vs David Wood, Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri. LOL

apran said...

I think the title should be Robert Spencer vs David Wood, Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri. LOL

Search 4 Truth said...

LOL! I cant believe right away Omar presents a logical fallacy that he can prove that no man can write something better than the Quran. It is such a ridiculous argument! It is subjective and of course no Muslim would ever admit something was written better.

Muslims dont have a methodology. They have lies and logical fallacies!

And whats even funnier he thinks this is rational thinking! LOL! He actually believes he is presenting a logical argument! It is so preposterous you have to live in a bubble to spew such nonsense and ignorance! Absolutely ABSURD!\
\
This is what Islam does to the mind!

Search 4 Truth said...

The Muslims are making the most ridiculous arguments that no logical rational human being would accept!

And Islam is not the fastest growing religion by conversion. All Muslims can do is spew propaganda!

Google the Pew Report read page 65, first and second paragraphs!

And where are the parchments and bones and skins that verify the Quran! The Quran has NO transcripts to verify it!

EVERYTHING MUSLIMS SAY ARE EITHER LIES OR LOGICAL FALLACIES!

Search 4 Truth said...

This may be one of the most embarrassing moments for Muslims apologists since I last saw Nadir Ahmed debate! LOL!

crujjy said...

I'm watching you debate right now David, but I think this is an important thing to clarify: why are the problems to historicity of the central figure(Jesus vs. Muhammad) plaguing Islam not plaguing Christianity? Clearly Christianity has a lot of early sources, but the gospels still come a couple of decades later(with some early reporting contained in the gospels), but this is no minor issue distinguishing Christianity from Islam in this regard? I just hate to hear people use flimsy arguments to state that Jesus didn't exist when He clearly did, and I"m having a difficult time seeing this as horribly different from those shallow arguments(but am open, and you seem to be coming up with at least plausible notes).

Search 4 Truth said...

Its 8:45 and I am laughing my AZZ off at this Omar dude! This is PATHETIC!

How can Muslims not see how ridiculous the Islamic argument is?

This is better than any sitcom or reality TV show I have ever seen in my entire life!

Search 4 Truth said...

I am starting to think Adman Chaudery even thinks Omar is a Moron! LOL!

Omar says his evidence is the Quran. Why does he believe it, because they Quran says so! Mohamed existed, why? Because they Quran says sop!

circular thinking! LOGICAL FALLACIES! LOL!

This is PATHETIC!

simple_truth said...

As David and Robert continually attested, Anjem and Omar could only make circular reasoning about the Qu'ran being perfect as proof of their claims and repetition of those claims as proof of their beliefs. They avoided any Islamic sources that stated their case, whereas David and Robert continually cited Islamic sources that represented their case well.

I enjoyed the debate, but was hoping that the Muslim side would have tried to substantiate their position by citations as their opponents did. They never really did provide any statements from historical sources to refute David and Robert's point that at least 125 years elapsed after Mohammad's presumed death before any mention of Mohammad was attested to and that the hadith collections are suspect because they became more detailed as time passed, which contrary to what is expected in historical traditions.

Great job, Robert and David at presenting the evidence and backing it up systematically and factually. Muslim debaters should take note from Robert and David in how to have an effective debate.

simple_truth said...

"mkvine said...

I actually missed the debate between David Wood and Robert Spencer. Can anyone fill me in, like a general review of what happened? From what it sounds like is that David was unable to demonstrate from Islamic sources that Muhammad existed, but nevertheless could show he did exist using the tools of historical criteria. If there's a link, I would appreciate it too. Thanks."

That debate hasn't taken place since tonight's debate became the focal point.

Traeh said...

I thought Spencer and Wood were to debate with each other Sunday April 29 on whether Muhammad existed. Did that debate happen?

Mary said...

Mr. Wood and Mr. Spencer make an excellent debate team. The other side was not interested in debating, just in declaring the Qur'an was divine because it says so. They were just proselytizing and wasting everyone's time because simply declaring it so and then inviting people to accept Islam was very lame. It was an obvious glory grab and a rationalization under Islam that the non-Muslims have been given a choice. I am surprised they did not make death threats for their closing arguments.

simple_truth said...

"Traeh said...

I thought Spencer and Wood were to debate with each other Sunday April 29 on whether Muhammad existed. Did that debate happen?"

It hasn't happened yet.

Emil Bengtsson said...

Wouldn't Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70 and Mark 6:50 all point to Jesus claiming divinity where he uses I AM (YHWH) to describe himself?

Unknown said...

If anyone missed it the Youtube link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=pmZe6Y-RXfc#t=7011s

Btw, someone wrote his name as Omar Baker (lol)

They claimed no "arab" Christian replicated any surahs. Not true, I believe Anis Shorrosh made the "True Furqan" which is recreating biblical scripture using the format of the Koran.

I felt embarrassed for Omar and Ajmin. I hope all their followers were watching, If I was a Muslim this debate alone would have made me leave Islam.

SGM said...

David and Robert,

All honor and glory be to our Lord and savior Jesus Christ. It was an excellent debate. May the Lord use you both more and more to bring honor and glory to His name.

As moslem apologists are engaged in debates more and more, it is becoming evident how shallow their claims are regarding Islam. It was actually pathetic to see that both Omar and Anjem had no support to reject David and Robert's claim.

The truth is, Christianity is a house built on a solid rock and Christ is our builder, we don't have to worry about any thing. Islam is a house built on sand. When the waves come and winds blow, they have every reason to worry about.

mikeyh428 said...

David, you and Robert ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Making those two poor Muslim debaters look that bad is just sinful, inhumane, and merciless. I honestly don't know how you two can sleep at night after completely humiliating two fellow human beings like that. How insensitive to their complete ignorance and delusional thinking processes could you two be? Where's the compassion? Where's the understanding?! Pounding them with historical facts is just being blatantly intolerant and disrespectful of their spiritually-handicapped beliefs. How could you treat someone with a disability that way!? What is this world coming to!?!? Oh, the misery of it all!

Anthony Rogers said...

Emil said: "Wouldn't Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70 and Mark 6:50 all point to Jesus claiming divinity where he uses I AM (YHWH) to describe himself?"

Yes! Scholars often dismiss John's testimony as without historical merit, but they grant that John teaches a very high Christology. One line of evidence they see in John derives from the absolute "I AM" statements found in John's Gospel. With that being the case, it is significant that we not only find "I AM" statements in the passages you listed, but one of them at least (Mark 6:50; see also Matthew 14:27) is parallel to what we find in John (6:20). So the admission that such a statement in John entails a high Christology is a tacit admission that Mark (and Matthew) taught a high Christology as well.

Davidsmountain .^. said...

I will be watching tonights debate. After watching the Dearborn conference(which was awesome), then the follow up show "Jesus or Muhammad" (equally awesome), I came to the same conclusion I always do, when attempting to reconcile Islam with reason and common sense. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, debating Islam with Muslims, is an exercise in futility! One thing was perfectly clear with your Muslim debaters, they don't care whether your well reasoned, logical arguments are true, as they consider the Quran an article of faith, even above truth or historical accuracy and clearly their frustration was evident as they listened (not) and responded (not). They didn't directly respond at all to your arguments, all they did was ignore or deny any credible point. I've always felt religion shouldn't be part of the argument with Islam, because there will never be consensus as long as it's a matter of faith, which evidently overides common sense and reason. I think any arguments to be made against Islam or Muslims, should be about social and political issues only. Let's not forget, Muslims openly tell us in their arrogance and defiance, how they will stealthily infiltrate and conquer us from within, how they're the "fastest growing religion", etc. If we can't establish a reasonable dialogue or we make hard won agreements in vain, which they easily ignore or don't honor, what are our remaining options? I maintain, there is no "getting along" with Islam or Muslims, because Islam is the self declared, eternal enemy of non-Muslims and anything goes, as for tactics in achieving the Islamic agenda, including lying, threats, violence and death. The following points are tactics employed by Islamic jihadists, specifically targeting the west:

1.) We'll never give up. No matter what you do, we will continue fighting. No matter what you offer, we will keep attacking you. Since you can't win, you should give up now.
2.) We're indifferent to pressure you put on us. We will turn this pressure against you. Against us, deterrence does not exist; diplomacy does not convince. Neither does the carrot buy us off, nor does the stick make us yield. There are no solutions that can end the conflict. You cannot win militarily, nor make peace through diplomacy.
3.) If you set economic sanctions, we'll say you are starving our people in an act of "collective punishment." Moreover, sanctions will cost you money and generate opposition among those who lose profits.
4.) In response to military operations we'll attack your civilians. Casualties will undermine your internal support. We will try to force you to kill civilians accidentally. We won't care, but will use this to persuade many, that you are evil. Thus, we will simultaneously murder your civilians and get you condemned, as human rights' violators.

Davidsmountain .^. said...

5.) If you try to isolate us, we will use your own media and intellectuals against you. At critical times, we'll hint at moderation and make promises of change. We will never do so, not enough to alienate our own followers, but enough to subvert yours. They will demand you engage us, which means you making concessions, for nothing real in exchange.
6.) Talking to our own people, we foment hatred and demonize you. Speaking to the West, we will accuse you of fomenting hatred. We will hypocritically turn against you, all the concepts you developed: racism, imperialism, failure to understand the "other," and so on. These, of course, are our ideas, but your feelings of guilt, ignorance about us, and indifference to ideology, will make you not notice that fact.
7.) We will claim to be victims and "underdogs. " Because you are the stronger and more "advanced ", that means you are the villains. We're not held responsible for our deeds or expected to live up to the same standards. There is no shortage of, to quote Lenin, "useful idiots" who will echo our propaganda.
8.) Since our societies are weak, undemocratic, and have few real moderates, you will have to make deals, with phony moderates and dictatorial regimes weakened, by corruption and incompetence.
9.) Even the less radical regimes are useful tools, often our immediate adversaries, partly play into our hands. Due to popular pressure–plus their desire to mobilize support and distract attention from their own shortcomings–they trumpet Arab and Islamic solidarity. They denounce the West, blame all problems on Israel, and revile America, even as they accept your aid. They glorify interpretations of Islam not too far from ours. They cheer Iraqi insurgents, Hizballah, and Hamas. They don't struggle against Iran getting nuclear weapons. They lay the basis for our mass support and recruits, as Lenin said selling us the rope to hang them as well as you.
10.) There's no diplomatic solution for you, though you yearn to find one. There's no military solution for you, whether you try that or not. You love life, we love death; you are divided, we are united; you want to get back to material satisfaction, we are dedicated revolutionaries. We will outlast you.
11.)Finally, our greatest weapon is that you truly don't understand all the points made above. You are taught, informed, and often led by people who simply don't comprehend what an alternative, highly ideological, revolutionary world view means. In effect, we will try, and often succeed, to turn your "best and brightest" into the worst and dimmest who think you can persuade us, blame you for the conflicts, or expect that we will alter our course, and we will use those mistakes against you.

Billy said...

David, next time, why don’t you guys debate a couple of cave men? Muslims, is this the best your false religion can offer? In addition, Anjem seemed to be deferential to Bakri, but Bakri was discourteous to Anjem in that he was monopolizing the time. Now, contrast that with how David and Robert took turns in the debate.

When Islam is confronted intellectually, the audience realizes that it is an utterly empty ideology that is incapable making a coherent defense—Islam simply does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny.
When Islam is confronted militarily, it is defeated effortlessly: for example, the tiny state of Israel thrashing the combined military of multiple Arab nations and the like.

Islam is intellectually contemptible, militarily pitiful, and we may be observing the beginning of the death-throes of this 1400-year-old violent and deceitful false religion.

Thank you, David and Robert.

Susan K said...

I just listened to the debate. GREAT JOB!

If anything, I laughed at the exact moment Robert Spencer laughed. As to David Wood, your arguments were impeccable, as always.

Susan K said...

I just watched it. GREAT JOB!

If anything, very entertaining.

One must wonder if Omar and Anjem realize what a fraud they are perpetrating. If they don't realize it as a result of this debate, it is a clear sign that they are not the brightest stars in the sky.

Finally, I couldn't keep from laughing at the precise moments Robert Spencer laughed. As to David Wood, you came up with the perfect arguments and logic.

Congratulations to both of you. Let's hope muslims were listening in.

Samatar Mohamed said...

"Congratulations to both of you. Let's hope muslims were listening in."

I must say I was extremely disappointed by the muslim debaters in this debate. They seemed to be debating "Is the Quran Miraculous" rather then "Did Muhammad Exist". I'm hoping some muslim scholars such as Shabir Ally will tackle this subject in the future.

Derek Adams said...

Samatar what do you expect when they bring in fundamentalists and preachers rather than historians or scholars?

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Derek Adams

"Samatar what do you expect when they bring in fundamentalists and preachers rather than historians or scholars?"

That's true, I wasn't expecting too much from them but I was hoping they would at least try to tackle the topic. It's like they gave up from the very beginning, making me wonder why on earth they even accepted the debate with no preparation whatsoever.

David Wood said...

Samatar,

There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If you can find someone you think will do a better job than Anjem and Omar, set it up.

Iwona said...

Come and prove your point..

ISLAM DOES NOT DEMAND BLIND BELIEF

“INVITE (ALL) TO THE WAY OF THY LORD, WITH WISDOM AND BEAUTIFUL PREACHING, AND ARGUE WITH THEM IN WAYS THAT ARE BEST AND MOST GRACIOUS!” [AL-QUR’AN 16:125]

Dr. Zakir Naik
President Islamic Research Foundation
Tel : +91 2223736875
Fax : +91 2223730689

http://www.irf.net/

Assyria_Lost said...

This debate was a travesty, intellectuals like Spenser and Wood deserved better opponents.

hugh watt said...

Samatar

"That's true, I wasn't expecting too much from them but I was hoping they would at least try to tackle the topic. It's like they gave up from the very beginning, making me wonder why on earth they even accepted the debate with no preparation whatsoever."

Isn't it clear to you they had nothing but emotional arguments to offer? Not once in the entire debate did they come close to bringing historical evidence for Muhammad's existence. To then call people to submit to Islam without any such proof was quite weak.

Hebrew Student said...

Wow. I don't know much about Islam, but I like listening to these debates in order to learn. However, what I heard in this debate was one side debating, and the other side giving a one hour advertisement for Islam [while taking some pot shots at the Bible along the way]. The two Islamic scholars were totally outmatched.

aaron said...

@iwona
we have asked zakir naik but he refused. sam shamoun challenged him but zakir naik backs down

Search 4 Truth said...

@ Iwona

If you ever realy studied the lies of Zakir Naik you wouldnt want him debating on your side.

He is playing with you simp0le minded Muslims. He gets a topic and then is asked about it. He then spews off a bunch of suars or verses from the Bible or Quran without reading them. So he pretends that he is proving his point by mentioning a bunch of verses. Without context. Even when he mentions the ayats from the Quran to prove his point they dont have anything to do with the topic of the question.

And you blind zealots just gobble it up like he is telling the truth! But you never stop to check to see if what he is saying is a lie!

AND HE ALWAYS LIES! JUST LIKE MOHAMED DID!

lol said...

Funny video ... Ask anything, Anjem And Omar would give u a single answer ... Anjem and Omar are Not ready at least to the face question .. Do they not understand question ??? or do they pretend as if they dont understand ???