This was absolutely hilarious! Nadir suffers from something called the Dunning–Kruger effect.The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127).In other words, he's to stupid to know how dumb he is! LOL!
Well easier to put into logic........ muhammad came conquering a city, then .... rape, rape, rape, sex, sex, sex.....It's like the dumbest religion on earth having a divine command to refrain COITUS INTERRUPTUS.To those women converts to islam and found peace in allah of islam... good luck to you.
which prophet of islam did have more than 1 ONE sexual encounters with slave girls.only muhammad - Rayhana, Saffiya, Maria Coptic (if that would be considered legal slave for sex)and .... untold numbers.not moses, howbout Abraham's Hagar? nope, howbout Jesus? never, howbout howbout howbout. Nope nope nope, just moo moo the rapist pedophile necrofilliac self acclaimed prophet.
PART ONE:@ NADIR: (I hope he reads this)I would be very interested about the sources Nadir has for the "genocide". Surely the Jews had not the best time during those days, but speaking of a genocide? And "the crulest people recorded in world history"?! Wow ... in germany today you have to say at least, that the nazis would take that place! I wonder, why Robert Spencer wasnt asking for the Sources and References?! Has he access to them too and just wasnt talking about them, or did he just ignore it?!The funny thing is - to what is he referring to excactly? Maybe the forced baptising of Jews through Herakleios? This was actually some kind of revenge, because the Jews helped the Persians to conquer Jerusalem (when the Jews were not very friendly to the christian population). Or maybe he is referring to the Code Justinian? Anyway - i dont know of any "genocidial" ideas in that magnitude, as Nadir claims, in roman history. Surely, they did many bad things, crucified and killed many Jews/Christians/whatever - but after all the Jews and Christians always lived together in some kind of way. I dont know of any Genocide like the Nazis did. And in the end the Jews and Christians arent living happily under islamic rule either. Or lets compare just one example:Romans:forbidding the building of Synagoges.Muslims: Jews/Christians are not allowed to build Synagoges/Churches.I guess we can make many similar comparisons.
PART 2If Mohammed was so peaceful, why did he attack the Persians then? And why did the muslims conquer so many places at all? Did they have to safe the people in all those places? I bet Nadir will say "Yes". You probably can always find some guy who liked being conquered by the muslims. Asking the slaves and captives, you would surely get a different answer.Otherwise Nadir must admit, that the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars were just and fine. Surely many people doent like it, but amerika is only helping the people that dont want to live under Islamic Rule. Where is the difference? It is from a different perspective,but it would be the same argumentation - Or are you saying all people loved the Taliban in Afghanistan?To clarify this: lets asume the Jews in Jerusalem were suffering from the evil christians. So the Muslim came and rescued them. What happened to the christians then? Did they like it? Now the christians were suffering - who will rescue them now? I think the reason for the muslim attack is simple. It is an ATTACK! And not an rescue mission. Just as the Quran tells them. Fight the unbelievers ...And the argument from Nadir "where is written BECAUSE" - hmm, let me think: "Fight the Unbelievers" is certainly enough. Maybe its not "BECAUSE" they are unbelievers - but the muslims have to fight them anyway, so where is the difference?!
PART 3Nadir likes to make those "where is it written in those words" Arguments. At least in the two debates i have seen him in. He also likes to get to the exact wording of the Debate Topic. Lets take this fictional Debate Topic for example: "Is Islam a Peaceful Religion, or is it allowing to kill people unjustly". He would then make his complete Argumentation around, that there is always a justification in the Quran for killing someone. If you say "killing someone is not peaceful" he would say:"back to topic, it IS just in the Quran"!!Oh and taking only the Quran (that is perfectly clear) you dont even have any historical connection ... so you have to take "man-written" hadith to know what is meant by the words? And why do so many muslim scholars read it just the way, as robert spencer does?But coming back to topic. NADIR please tell me your sources about the roman genocide. I never have heard about it and as a student of history, i could probably get a good job at my university, when i, as the first person, write a book about it ;). And dont get me wrong. The Romans (Actually for most of the time they were romans and not christians - and killing people in the name of christ, is not making you a christian... but thats getting OffTopic), well the romans did a lot of bad things. But certainly destroying the Temple in Jerusalem and most other stuff happened way before the romans were "christians" and even when they were, there always lived Jews unharmed in Europe and i really dont know of a complete genocidial plan! So asuming there was NO genocide... all of Nadirs arguments are in vain?! Doesnt Nadir look silly, if he cant provide evidence for the genocide? And please dont come up with some Jews in some place were mocked by some people, so that the muslims had to invade that place, take sex-slaves and free those few Jews!! You were talking about a Genocide, that was worse than anything else in History (somehow the 2nd World War always springed to my mind when you mentioned it in your debate).
PART 4Ah and one more thing. Nadirs argumentation in the first part was almost completely this one "Mohammed chose the sex-slave that submitted to him and send the one that defended herself against him away". And he also says, that you should take Mohammads deeds as a guide. Hm, so does this support his case? I think NOT! In my point of view it only tells you: "If you have to choose between 2 Sex-Slaves, take the one that doesnt make any trouble". It doesnt say anything about not raping Sex-Slaves (actually Sex with a Slave is always a kind of rape, because the Slave would have never ended up in that situation if he/she could have chosen). And even if Mohammed had only ONE Sex-Slave, it makes him look realy, realy bad in my opinion! But wait - hey, that brings up a nice thought (And dont be offended, its some kind of weird, black humor). You Muslims always complain about those Catholic Priests and their little friends? Isnt this actually some kind of Sex-Slave thing? Maybe they are just secretly good Muslims, following their best example.At least in my opinion its on the same moral level.
O...M...G! When I saw this I thought it was Christmas. Nadir Ahmed, president of MENSA, is debating again??? Awesome. I am not sure I should if I should watch it now or savor the anticipation. Did you guys see that debate on whether Islam promotes violence against non-Muslims between Professor Nadir Ahmed and David? David read a Hadith that condoned Muslim violence against non Muslims and Nadir said David didn't know what he was taking about and handed him a copy of Seerah Ibn Ishaq that said If (non-Muslims) bring peace (Muslims) will accept it. When it was David's turn to speak he read the next page that said if non-Muslims don't submit to Islam the Muslims should fight them until they do they should suffer and be plundered. It was great!
Oh One more Thing (And Nadir might like this):Many people say, that Nadir is not a talented debater and that he lost all his debates and such. I actually have to deny this. He is talented in a very particular way - he chooses the topics well. Would the topic of this debat have been:"Is it allowed to have sex with a Slave in Islam" & "Is the Quran in some parts ordering to fight unbelievers", He certainly wouldnt have had the possibility to argue against it! The wording of the actual debate topic was in his favour, in that he could insist on the word RAPE and "fight BECAUSE they are unbelievers". So he choose the debate topics well and that IS some kind of talent for a debater. And lets be honest: "Is it allowed to have sex with a Slave in Islam / Sex-Slaves" would make islam look bad in any western country - i bet he wouldnt go into that debate!I have the feeling that many non-muslim debaters dont take the topic serious enough. "Is rape allowed in islam" - surely every christian debater would say "Yes". But its actually kind of hard to argue for it, because the wording "RAPE" is not in the Quran - so you would first have to set up a debate: "Is Sex with a slave = Rape" to get the correct foundation for the other debate. Otherwise any muslim could say, that those slaves did it on a free-will basis (wich is obviously ridicoulus, but makes a good point in a debate).Ah and Robert Spencer (dont get me wrong, i think you did a great job again): - you are certainly a very educated man and have a great talent for debate and get a lot of positive feedback all the time (and i realy like your debates and listen to your stuff often), but in this case i have to criticize you in some points:1) You should have asked about those genocide claims. It looked a bit odd - Nadir claiming the romans were the crulest in history?! come on...2) You could have argued more against Nadirs claims. You brought up very well founded arguments, but you left Nadirs stuff mostly uncommented. Just like i wrote above - this 2 Sex-Slave thing ... you could have made Nadir look ridiculous, if you would have taken the opportunity. You brought up good arguments on your own, but left his "arguments" standind as they were most of the time. 3) I watched some debates in the past and the muslims seem to choose the topics wisely -> just as i wrote to Nadir. The wording of the Debate Topic is realy important!----------------------------In general, in most debates i watched, both sides just bring up their arguments and its turning in circles: Side A claiming X, side B claiming Y. And both always just repeating their argument. Very rarely side A saying X AND refuting Y.In this Debate for example Nadir would have looked realy bad, if Robert Spencer would have asked for the sources about the Genocide. Or put the 2 Sex-Slaves in the correct view (chosing between 2 Sex-Slaves is NOT a moral good thing!!!)I think especially in the Sex-Slaves thing you would always win 99% of the audience - in a western country.
Mr. Spencer did an amazing job. Debating with Muslim apologists is mostly refuting the lies (tagiyya) and half-truths. But, that's expected from a cult whose prophet lied, advocated lying, and said his Allah was the master deceiver. In the Bible, lying is against one of God's Ten Commandments, and Jesus called satan the "father of lies." It is like watching someone debate with satan.
Robert: “Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him.” Al-Bukhary (number 6922)Robert: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Quran 9:29Nadir: Fight the unbelievers doesn’t mean fight the unbelievers. It means protect the unbelievers.Nadir: I won the debateS4T: Nadir suffers from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
I thought that the introduction was the best. Robert SPencer, author of XXXXX books, jihad watch, bestseller....ANd then we have Nadir ahmed.......Part time insurance salesman, cab driver, and whole sale distributor of potato chips.....who happens to be a "muslim debater" Nadir Ahmed is a credit to the consaguinistani tradition of intellectualism. Is nadir the official "western debater for islam" dispatched from the al queda division.
Hi... could someone helpe me to find the video made by brother David Wood in which he argues thate 1) allah need people to sin in order to bee mercifull and hattes those whodo not; 2) satan makes people sin; 3) Jesus did nott sin; 4) allah hattes Jesus?Thanks in advance...
I just began watching, so I can't comment on the content yet. But I don't think I've ever seen Nadir wear a tie before!
you know If i was Spencer I would challenge nadir on where in the bible it says we were allow rape.
I want full commentary written.Humanity long live.
Irshad Manji (a well known liberal moslem) was stopped in the middle of her seminar in Indonesia and forced to leave Indonesia by angry mob of fundamentalist muslims supported by the police and authorities.Here's the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQAlWOWfUoA,(P.S Indonesia is well known for its tolerant muslim, this event shows how tolerant a muslim can be even toward another muslim with different view )
@Herakleios said...@ NADIR: (I hope he reads this)I would be very interested about the sources Nadir has for the "genocide". Surely the Jews had not the best time during those days, but speaking of a genocide? And "the crulest people recorded in world history"?! Wow ... in germany today you have to say at least, that the nazis would take that place! IWhat about the HOLY ROMAN CAESAR's (POPES JESUIT) Anti reformation efforts and Democides against countless protestant christians. Theres a very conservative figure on that which equates to between 150 Million to 200 Million from the time of the reformation till today, including protestant ireland vs the catholics, Hope you see my point how stupid this is. Historians cant agree on the exact figures but the jesuit and roman forces have waged war against true bible believers since well forever.What Hitlers Nazi party did was absolutely abhorent, to say the least but I just wanted to put some perspective out there for others to actually do a little bit of research that protestant christians and Jews are equally hated by the pope as well as the satanic cult of islam!Actually Rome signed a concordance with two of the bigest facist regimes of the 20th century. Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. ANd who worked well with the two facsist nations? Have a guess.... if you guessed the MUSLIMS well you were right.Historical FACT Mussolini's Italy and concordat with the POPE... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mussolini_roman_catholic.htmHitlers concordat with the Pope...http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showtopic.php?kb_header_id=752Those sums of money equate to billions of dollars.Some more food for thought. If anyone can be bothered to look past the blinds or see the forrest through the trees!http://www.spirituallysmart.com/nazi.htmlLook up where the hail hitler salute comes from? Does it look familiar to anyone? Google roman salute pope, thats right its a salute to caesar. Emperor and god on earthVicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi; Vicar of God is used as an equivalent title)The pope along with all the muftis sheiks are all anti christ and they know it.Do your own research. Don't dall for their BS.
Mr Wood,People admire and respect your opinions and efforts in your quest to free the minds of those trapped behinds islams veil. Well there are plenty of Christians who fall into that catagory too. Please do some research and start informing people about the truth.
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ... from the King James Bible Online (KJV Bible).http://www.cai.org/bible-studieshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0xvPteadUQhttp://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/Jeremiah 29:10For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. 11For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. 12Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. 13And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. 14And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.
Let us examine what constitutes being an unbeliever in Islam.1. One has to reject Islam's concept of God.2. One has to reject Mohammed as prophet.3. One has to reject the laws of Islam.4. One has to reject all of Islam.Now let's see what 9:29 has to say.[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah (1), nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited (2,3), nor follow the religion of truth (4), out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.In essence 9:29 is not only saying kill unbelievers because of their unbelief, it also specifies who the target victims should be. i.e, The people of the Book (Jews & Christians)I don't understand what kind of glue Nadir is sniffing, but it seems to be working great on him. He lives in a state of blissful denial.Albeit, Allah must truly be the father of all lies, if his followers are all of the ilk of the spin doctor Nadir Ahmed.
Hi David,Check this out if you haven't read already:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/grooming-trial-child-sex-gang-members-jailed-103645817.htmlThe thought they were still in Pakistan...
I guess Nadir hadnt read about this part of Islamic history.In his book "Negation in India" Famous Belgian historian Koenraad Elst wrote:The Blitzkrieg of the Muslim armies in the first decades after the birth of their religion had such enduring results precisely because the Pagan populations in West- and Central-Asia had no choice (except death) but to convert. Whatever the converts' own resentment, their children grew up as Muslims and gradually identified with this religion. Within a few generations the initial resistance against these forcible converions was forgotten, and these areas became heidenfrei (free from Pagans, cfr. judenfrei).The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.According to some calculations, the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).But the Indian Pagans were far too numerous and never fully surrendered. Against these rebellious Pagans the Muslim rulers preferred to avoid total confrontation, and to accept the compromise which the (in India dominant) Hanifite school of Islamic law made possible.Alone among the four Islamic law schools, the school of Hanifa gave Muslim rulers the right not to offer the Pagans the sole choice between death and conversion, but to allow them toleration as zimmis (protected ones) living under 20 humiliating conditions, and to collect the jizya (toleration tax) from them.Normally the zimmi status was only open to Jews and Christians (and even that concession was condemned by jurists of the Hanbalite school like lbn Taymiya), which explains why these communities have survived in Muslim countries while most other religions have not. Akbar (whom orthodox Muslims consider an apostate) cancelled these humiliating conditions and the jizya tax.It is because of Hanifite law that many Muslim rulers in India considered themselves exempted from the duty to continue the genocide on the Hindus (self-exemption for which they were persistently reprimanded by their mullahs). Moreover, the Turkish and Afghan invaders also fought each other, so they often had to ally themselves with accursed unbelievers against fellow Muslims. After the conquests, Islamic occupation gradually lost its character of a total campaign to destroy the Pagans.Many Muslim rulers preferred to enjoy the revenue from stable and prosperous kingdoms, and were content to extract the jizya tax, and to limit their conversion effort to material incentives and support to the missionary campaigns of sufis and mullahs (in fact, for less zealous rulers, the jizya was an incentive to discourage conversions, as these would mean a loss of revenue).
@BOB: As a german protestant, i surely know about conflicts between catholics and protestants - but that wasnt the topic of the debate and i just took the Nazi example, because you hear it all the time in germany. By the way i live in the town, were the peace treaty of the 30 Years War was signed ... i think this can be called a realy big conflict between protestants and catholics (at least in the beginning, later on it went a different direction).Anyway - its just ridiculous, what Nadir stated, i only can agree with you on this!Regarding the 150-200 million, i dont know where you get the numbers from. For sure, it have been way too many! Being a protestant myself, this now might sound a bit odd, but i dont think its all the catholics fault - taking the 30 Years War for example ... there were atrocities on both sides and in the end the religious believes didnt even matter anymore. We can be happy, that those times of conflict between catholics and protestants are over (at least in most parts of the world).The Pope and the catholic church are realy wrong from a protestant view and praying to Saints and all that stuff ... well, we can be happy that the reformation took place, although the price was high!Today i am actually very disappointed by the german protestant church ... they act like the islam and all religions believe in the same god and we are all one happy family. They close their eyes and dont want to see the truth about islam. In this point the catholic church is at least a very little bit "better" in germany. One protestant bishop from bavaria even stated, that we should open our hearts for the muslim teachings!?!! WTF :DIf you can read german: http://newpi.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/evangelischer-landesbischof-will-offnung-zum-islam/Well - still wondering about Nadirs genocide sources ;)
Muslo-nazis aren't used to responding to ANY criticism of their f'ed up faith of genocidal hatred, intolerance, anti-Semitism and anti-Christian bigotry. The reason being is that in ANY islamic state debates such as these don't take place, whether in print, in person or on the television.Personally, I think these debates are mere temporizing until such time as the islamonazis can outlaw any criticism of islam.
Nadir Ahmed repeated the same thing over and over again that actually convinced me! The poor man cant be invited for another debate. It is humiliating for him. Please have mercy of this poor man! Invite someone who are able to think!
"Today i am actually very disappointed by the german protestant church ... they act like the islam and all religions believe in the same god and we are all one happy family. They close their eyes and dont want to see the truth about islam. In this point the catholic church is at least a very little bit "better" in germany. One protestant bishop from bavaria even stated, that we should open our hearts for the muslim teachings!?!! WTF :D"http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htmScroll down to 841 and see what even the Catholic Church teaches regarding non-Christian religions. Islam even gets a special mention. I've heard the Catholic priest say, even though he's conservative, that Christians have much to learn from Muslims even though there are our fundamental differences. Most Catholics I talk to interpret this teaching as meaning that Muslims worship the same God, and they're the next best thing after non-Catholic Christians.
I disagree with Robert Spencer about whether Mohammed existed or not ...When Mohammed died, he was left 3 days before they bury him! ...Islamic sources said that Mohammed stunk and they finally had to bury him on late Wednesday night!If he stunk that means he existed ...
First of all the news by David about his 2 sons and their illness that has them at the verge of death left me depressed for a long time.I don't know why it happened and there is no why,no answer,really.It is absurd.But I admire that David is doing what he does,and I wouldn't blame him if he decided to quit.He has done more than enough.As for the comment about Catholics and the Muslim God it is true that some famous Catholic intellectuals have said Muhammad was a prophet of God or very close.Read about them here:about Kreeft,Girzone and Hans KungIt is in French,you can translate using GOOGLE TRANSLATE:http://translate.google.com/"La Position Contradictoire de quelques Intellectuels Catholiques sur le Statut de Mahomet comme un Prophete"http://www.avraidire.com/2010/11/la-position-contradictoire-de-quelques-intellectuels-catholiques-sur-le-statut-de-mahomet-comme-un-prophete/ALSO CHECK OUT"The First Declaration of the Aboliton of Black Slavery,in Mexico in 1642,by the Man who Inspired Zorro"http://www.antisharia.com/2012/05/09/the-first-declaration-of-the-aboliton-of-black-slaveryin-mexico-in-1642by-the-man-who-inspired-zorro/
"If he stunk that means he existed ..."Sorry I can't always tell with the I.Q. with some of the people on this blog.Are you being serious?
I listened to the debate. Here is my summing up:Re: the part of the debate whether Islam allows rape of captive women and slaves - it seems pretty clear from the Quran and Hadiths thata. Islam allows slavery (Not disputed by Nadir Ahmed)b. It allows sex by Muslim men with women slaves and captured non-Muslim women even, if they are marriedWhat Nadir Ahmed doesn't realise is that is rape. Maybe by his definition that is not rape.He claimed that in the case of the capture of Safiyya and another woman, (Juwairiyya?) after the surprise raid and capture of Khaibar, Juwairiyya screamed and shouted and put sand on her head. Now Nadir Ahmed asks what did that mean? He answers obviously it means she was not willing to have sex. (After all all that was the foremost thing on the minds of the Muslim men and they presumed it must have been the first thing on the minds of the captured women also. They just must have been just dying to have sex with the killers of their male relatives).However Nadir Ahmed misses an important alternative explanation for the woman's bizarre behaviour - she was traumatised by the violent death of her relatives and such hysteria is normal under those circumstances. Then the charming holy prophet said get this she devil away from me and threw his cloak over the "willing participant", Safiyya who was calm (and young and beautiful).And what did Safiyya say? - She said "You are the fulfillment of my dreams". She was 18 he was in his 50's and had just tortured and killed her husband, father, brothers and relatives.But please do not disbelieve this story - it was written by Muslim historians who wrote the history of Muhammad.Re: the part of the debate where Nadir Ahmed talks about whether Islam tells Muslims to wage violent Jihad against non-Muslims "... To be continued later
@aaronYes, but if one tried to chase every red herring Nadir throws up, they'll never address the topic at hand. That's Nadir's entire strategy. Muddy the waters with false facts and try to draw the other debater into defending a 101 different specious accusations. He believes if he can just pile his baseless assertions higher and deeper, no one will ever be able to dig to the bottom in the short time of a debate.
What is going on with Davids children? I only heard vague references about them being ill. I pray they are ok. Can someone let me know. I am so sorry brother.
Hello search for truth,David said in a video here,in the one where he talks at the Jessika conference along with Spencer,Coren and Geller, that 2 of his 4 sons have a genetic illness that has them on the verge of death.Here is where he speaks of it all:http://youtu.be/Li_LdZhPjZo
Hello search for truth,in the video at min 11 is where it begins with the part about David's childrenhttp://youtu.be/Li_LdZhPjZo
Thanks minoria.Hey David have you seen this discussion? Much of it is about you. Slandering you. Farhan is being fair but Esthesam is ridiculous! Check it out! I am praying for your family bro.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h3zqShwDG0
Was Muhammad handsome that many women just fell into his trap??
@WalterYour theory explains a lot about the circus the muslo-fascists and their tools made of Pamela Geller's appearance at Temple University. They loudly scream their specious objections hoping to drown out the truth.
Hi Search for truth,Farhan said he "respects Muhamamd"?He is intelligent,how can he respect a man who Muslims believe had sex with a 9 year old girl,pedophilia?Or who raped Safiya after killing her husband,brothers and father,according to Muslim sources.I think Farhan is lost to logic.So goes the world.I heard what Ehteshaam said and he is in denial.I answered some of Ehteshaam's points about Ehrman and Carrier.Carrier and Ehrman have grave scholarly defects,based on the evidence.WHY I THINK EHTESHAAM IS LYING ABOUT CARRIER(maybe I am wrong also)He said Carrier said David was a hatemonger and that was WHY he would never debate him.FALSEThere is HOLDING of tektonics.org who writes very sarcastically and funnily, against the views of Price,Carrier,etc,and Carrier had no problem debating with him,on the NT,on "Is the NT reliable?"http://youtu.be/phj5H9NycdYI think Ehteshaam doesn't want to see their defects regarding methodology,so much for Carrier's and Ehrman's logic.I have analyzed their points from many angles and they lack scholarship,points I have told and answered to the French readers of avraidire.com,somebody had to do it.Now Shamoun becomes too aggressive and even insults others and that's negative.Now Farhan was illogical in saying he was against David for going to Dearborn because it was provocative?It is a case of Freedom of Speech.Pure and simple,there Farhan has some of the old Muslim mentality of supremacism.As for Ahmed and Ehteshaam saying he won all his debates,he won no debates,he was utterly illogical and careless in his methodology,no methodology at all.Shabir Ally is easy to show as having no basis in his arguments,but one has to know the specifics well.If he were to say the Trinity is nowhere in the NT I would point to Matt 28 and later to the Didache(it has Matt 28) as showing the Trinity from the point of view of Judaism.It is 100% obvious that there you have the Trinity.Now if Shabir says no then he is no scholar.He is a pretense.So what can you say?Only,let the public read all the evidence and they will see what I see.ANOTHER EXAMPLEWatch this Yusuf Ismail and Licona's debate on if the evidence is that Jesus died in the 1st century.Yusuf uses the ARGUMENTS of SHABIR and Licona shows him to be wrong.I had heard Shabir used those same arguemnts in other debates,Yusuf copied from him.Watch it:http://youtu.be/Lf6PPe2sRYI
Also Farhan said "it is WRONG to hate Islam".Islam is a belief system like racism,communism,capitalism.You can hate a belief system like RACISM,so why is it wrong to hate a belief system whose founder Muh. said "kill those who leave Islam".Farhan has just shown he has no logic,no methodology,wow,I thought he was better than that.Search for truth,Farhan is not being fair and logical in much of his discussion.He contradicts himself.And when Ehtesham said "The only acceptable racism is against Muslims" Farhan did not correct him and say "Muslims are not a race and your statement has no basis."As for the idea of Muslims are a cancer to society I think in general they are when they become the majority and even before.Why?Because of their ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM which goes against freedom of speech and human rights.THE PROOFThe absurdity that even educated Muslims in the West are incapable of seeing the intellectual bankrupcy of the term ISLAMOPHOBIA and saying it is the equivalent of JUDEOPHOBIA,RACISM.You see it all the time....just look at Ehtesham,Zawadi,Sami,Paul Williams,even much of ex-Muslim Farhan. They are incapable of logic.....I think in many cases it is the result of INBREEDING,which is 30% among Muslims,marriage to 1st and 2nd cousins.In all I have said there is STRONG LOGIC and EVIDENCE,I havent said it for no good reason.Would the ordinary NON-MUSLIM see it from my point of view.Yes,he would,once he verifies the evidence and logic.Would the ordinary Muslim react the same,I think not.
Oh and here is a website showing some non muslim sources that mention the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) from 622 to 719 CE. Here is the link.http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlysaw.html
Hello Samatar,Thanks for the link,very interesting,I would have to read Spencer's answers to that information in his book.They still don't sell it here in the bookstores in my city.
@ MinoriaYeah Esthesam was just making personal attacks without any substantiation. I agree Sam can be offensive to some. But that in and of itself does not dismiss his credibility. i get fed up with people myself. That doesnt mean what i say is untrue. I agree with everything you said though. I think Farhan was pandering to Esthesam or whatever hos name is! I can never remember! He lacks all credibility when he says Nadir Ahmed and Zattarri are great debaters. LOL! You cant take anything he says after that seriously.
@Samatar: Just looked at your link and after reading the first part, i already see a big mistake you are making with that text. The link says:"This means that the time period between the death of Muhammad (June, 632 CE) and the earliest mention of him (4th February, 634 CE) is slightly over a year and half!"The author (you?) from this text comes to this conclusion, because the manuscript mentiones the date 4. February 634. The manuscript is from a later DATE! Just because the author mentiones the 4. February doesnt mean, that the manuscript is from that date. Thomas the Presbyter (I have to find more information about him to tell more) definitely wrote at some later time and was looking back to the events!The logic in your link is realy wrong ... its the same as if somebody would say "because the gospel of mathew mentiones the birth of jesus, the author must have witnessed it and so the first mention of jesus can be dated 1 second after his birth .... thats absurd!The text from thomas the presbyter might be close to the real date, but just by mentioning some date in a text, doenst make the text come from that time! The Text even might have been edited at a later time, just like many other texts have been edited and didnt survive through time in their original form and the name Muhamad even might not refer to "the" mohamad!If you take those texts as "fact" you would have to take Josephus mentioning Jesus as fact too! I am realy interested in the topic (islam in non-muslim sources) and already have found some interesting books about it... It will take some time, because I usually study some other stuff at university, but i might write an article about it.
Hello search for truth,Thanks for the feedback.As for Zaatari and Nadir being great debaters I have to say it is like this with me:You can be a great debator yet have a bad argument.In the sense they seem to be right,if you don't know specifics,they can seem to be great(but they are wrong).For ExampleI have recently read,qucikly,Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?".I disagree with his logic,specifics about the dating of the gospels and other things(like that in Mark Jesus never says he is God,what nonsense,I have investigated all the angles to it and he does say it).Ehrman is no theologian so he is dead wrong.He seems to not know Judaism.However regarding his critique of Richard Carrier,Earl Doherty,Robert PriceThose are the 3 top "Jesus never existed" scholars.Ehrman's writing is 50% of the time too much blah,blah,blah.I prefer getting to the point,concison,enumeration of points.That is why in my articles I always divide all into little fragments:enumeration,concision.But he gives very great specific reasons for rejecting the arguments of those 3 guys.Now my opinion of Price and Carrier as serious scholars is even lower.And in the chapter on Earl Doherty Ehrman says he wrote 800 pages which would need a book of 2,400 pages to show all his errors.In other words Doherty is rotten in scholarship.For exampleEhrman says to say:"The gospels contain errors,so Jesus never existed" is wrong since it is like saying:"X book about Hitler has:1.Errors2.Legends3.Is biased in his favor4.Is 2 generations later5.We dont know who wrote it....so Hitler never existed"Ehrman says even if all that were true,and HE BELIEVES it,using historical methods we can say Jesus existed.See,he shows the bad scholarship of those guys.He also devotes a chapter to debunking the assertions of Carrier and others that:"Jesus is a Myth taken from Dying and Rising gods of Antiquity,and other legends,he never existed".Also check out:"The Koran says the Jews are,in effect,the Chosen People,but it is not permanent"http://www.antisharia.com/2011/12/22/the-koran-says-the-jews-arein-effectthe-chosen-peoplebut-it-is-not-permanent/
Hello Heraklios:You said you might write an article about Muh. in non-Islamic sources,when you finish it it could be published in antisharia.comJust copy and paste the article in the comment section of antisharia.com and from there I would copy it and publish it as an article in the blog.Then if you want I can erase the article from the comment section,just leaving it as an independent article.
Minoria if I am too aggressive and insulting then I am in good company. Just take a moment and read the following without your bias being imposed into your reading of these texts: 1 Kings 18:27; Psalm 2:4; 37:13; Proverbs 1:26; Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Acts 13:6-12; Matthew 23:11-39; Luke 11:37-52; Philippians 3:3; 2 Peter 2:12, 22. And make sure to read through this while you are at it: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm
Hi Sam,I get your point,those verses are good but they apply to something utterly different....to non-Muslims.To people who still have a logical area.Really,Zawadi,Paul Williams,Sami,Ehteshaam,Kunde,Deedat,maybe even Shabir Ally,etc....they are in dreamland and won't ever change,they REALLY BELIEVE their ILLOGIC.I would add atheists Dan Barker and AcharyaThe Biblical verses apply to people who are still capable of returning to reality.With Osama,Etesham,etc,they are as incapable of seeing their illogic as the man who killed John Lennon because he thought he was John LennonOnly thing to do is to patiently repeat to them why they are wrong,for the reader's sakes as well as ours,but not using Biblical strong language because they don't fall into the category of those who function with a logical mind that can see reality.
"'If he stunk that means he existed ...'Sorry I can't always tell with the I.Q. with some of the people on this blog.Are you being serious?"Well, the premiss is true...
@Minoria: I will glady post the article, when its done. I found some very interesting new publications from german authors about this topic. Sadly I have a lot of work to do for university, so it might take some time, to finish the article. I dont think the publications from the german authors are translated to english yet, so i will do that for the important parts too and add them to my article.Latest in July i have a lot of freetime ... so expect it around that time.:)
Minoria, your reply that they apply to non-Muslims is rather desperate SINCE THERE WERE NO MUSLIMS BACK THEN! If we apply your hermeneutic we could never apply ANY passage of the Bible to Muslims since they were directed to non-Muslims. For instance, you could never use 1 John 2:22-23 against Muslims to prove that Muhammad was an antichrist since the group that John was targeting were a proto-Gnostic group that denied the real humanity of Christ.Like I said, you need to stop reading your biased understanding into these texts and, once you do, you will see that I am in good company.Hope that helps you my brother.
Hi Herakleitos,I am glad you said YES.Your studies are far more more important,so that comes first.Hello Sam,I was not referring to all Muslims,only those who are like Sami,Ehteshaam,etc.Not all Muslims are like them,out of touch with reality.Notice I also added Barker and Acharya,2 ex-Christian atheists.Not all atheists are in dreamland like them.Telling them they are wacko won't change them because in their mental state they will literally never see they are.One can only feel sorry for them.About Shabir AllyI am beginning to think he is in the same group.I was listening a bit to a pre-2000 debate he had with Jay Smith.Hey,that guy today in 2012 still says:1.According to the gospels we can't say that Jesus resurrected since:a.In John in Galilee they didn't at first recognize him(it turns out the text says it was still dark,dawn-like and they were a distance away).Holy crap,that is the silliest argument,and he still repeats it?b.Mary Mag in John at first didn't recognize Jesus(the text also says she had her head turned away,then she turned and recognized him)c.Alot of bla,bla,bla that in Luc the disciples at first thought he was a ghost.The rest of his argument is really incoherent(apparently Jesus,having a resurrected body,could just pass through a wall,but still be flesh and blood,like Houdini).Of course,a glorified resurrected body has abilities we don't have.d.Then in Luc 2 men on the way to Emmaus didn't recognize him.But later the text says something was taken from their eyes and they did.It is obvious the text says a supernatural force prevented it,otherwise they WOULD HAVE recognized Jesus,no problem.e.In Matt 28 Jesus appears and regarding the disciples "they doubted".That is easily explained by Judaism.The passage is authentic because of the criterion of embarassment.If a man who claimed to be God was killed and then he appears resurrected any Jew would....sooner or later think:"Maybe this is a trick of the Devil,he did not really resurrect."That is how a Hassidic Jew today would think,so would a 1st century Palestinian Jew.Shabir in the 21st century expects us to take such arguments seriously?So goes the world.
Dunning–Kruger indeed.It's just amazing how there is not one word of truth found in this religion. Of course Islam teaches Muslims Slaving and raping female prisoners is ok. Any fool can see this. I wonder what damage one must suffer to become so blind to the obvious. This Nadir's babble about his thin excuses do not hold a drop of water. His attacks on his opponent are totally lame. It hurts my mind to listen to this Nadir. rudeness is forgivable. Stupidity is not.
Post a Comment