Thursday, February 14, 2013

Birmingham UK Debate

39 comments:

taomeano said...

Rev Samuel Green
Why do you waste your precious time and energy debating Zakir Hussain, he is not a good debater and he is an intellectual lightweight. I have listened to him, his arguments are frivolous and his logic is seriously flawed. In short, he is not worthy of your time for a debate.

You are going to be hearing the same song and dance arguments that hold no water. Now watch out, when he feels like he is loosing the debate he will be mentioning your name at the beginning of every statement he makes. It is the surest sign that he is facing defeat, it is so weird.

He needs to do more studying before getting on the apologetics circuit, because he sounds like a bloviating ignoramus.

In any case I like listening to you, so for your sake I might watch the debate. God bless you for all you do for the kingdom of God on the earth.

David Wood said...

Well, if we wait for Muslim opponents with strong arguments and valid logic, I'm afraid this will be the end of Christian-Muslim debate in our world!

SGM said...

I pray that the Holy Spirit uses brother Samuel thru this debate to bring honor and glory to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That He will give him boldness to speak the truth and to expose the lies of the devil. I pray that our Lord protect our brother for speaking the truth.

Brother Samuel, be bold in exposing the lies of the devil. Zakir is cunning and is all over the place. Don't be intimidated when pulls allegations about the bible from thin air and without any proof.

We know one thing, for fourteen hundred years, moslems are neither able to prove that Bible is not the word of God nor will they be able to in the next fourteen hundred million years. Instead they make a fool out of themselves when trying to disapprove the Bible. I have not seen any religion in this world which tries to prove its scripture’s (Quran) validity by trying to prove that other (Bible) scripture is wrong. If it was so important that Quran’s validity has to stand upon proving the Bible to be wrong, then this should have been the primary goal of Allah to clearly mention how. Funny thing is that by making this statement Allah proves that his word has changed which he claims that it cannot.

Hazakim1 said...

I love Samuel Green as he is a very gracious debater but I have a feeling the Muslim Debate Initiative likes him more than David Wood for this very reason. Brother Samuel Green is very lamb like....I would like to see more of the lion come out every now and then...

BOOTA SINGH said...

Debating with Zakir Hussain is waste of time, at the end of last year he already had debate with Bro David Wood in Birmingham. Zakir Hussain was just reading print out papers from different websites. When question was asked he get upset and personal.

aaron said...

@brother samuel
it would be more advisable to be more assertive and bring in why the quran is from man would be a great response

Anil john said...

brother plz plz plz contact Lauren Booth for debate or invite her in any of your debate or program.

Craig said...

@ david wood

I was watching a debate with you and Sam with two other Muslims about who Muhammad was. I was wondering if you knew what source Sam was referring to when he said Muhammad was a example for intercourse with pre-pubesent girls. Thank you

David Wood said...

Craig,

That's in just about every Muslim source. The Qur'an, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and so on all affirm sex with prepubescent girls.

Search for my article "Was Muhammad a Pedophile?" and Sam's article "An Examination of Muhammad's Relationship with a Prepubescent Girl and Its Moral Implications."

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

"Well, if we wait for Muslim opponents with strong arguments and valid logic, I'm afraid this will be the end of Christian-Muslim debate in our world!"

Are you forgetting about Bassam Zawadi. He has done extremely well against you, James white, and especially Nabeel Qureshi.

David Wood said...

Samatar,

You're confusing "doing well" with "having good arguments and valid logic." Zakir Naik "did well" in his debate against William Campbell. But his arguments were horrible. Similarly, Zawadi may "do well" in a debate, but his arguments are horrible.

Generally, a Muslim "doing well" in a debate consists of some or all of the following: (1) speaking confidently, even when spouting complete nonsense; (2) speaking more rapidly than his opponent, in order to appear to have more to say; (3) bringing up too many topics for the opponent to address carefully; (4) diverting the topic to secondary issues rather than essential issues. Of course, it always helps the Muslim debater when the Muslims in the audience automatically take his side, regardless of how weak his arguments are.

With that said, Zawadi is probably the best all-around debater on your side. Shabir is better, but I can't consider him an all-around debater, because he won't defend his prophet in debate.

And just to show you what I mean, how about giving us what you would regard as Zawadi's BEST argument for the preservation of the Qur'an or the prophethood of Muhammad. What's his most wonderful, knockdown argument? Let's analyze it carefully and you might see what I mean.

Caricature said...

Samatar,

it's hard to defend an insane caveman.

Caricature said...

Samatar,

What do you think about that wacky jihad song?

minoria said...

Hello Samatar:

In my humble opinion the Koran has a real situation that makes it completely contradictory:

1.A married Muslim man can have a wife and also sleep with slave girls to who he is NOT married.

2.That is ADULTERY.

As Shabir Ally says:it is a square circle or a married bachelor.

That in itself makes Muhammad not be a candidate for a prophet like Moses.Would the historical Moses actually agree with Muhammad,no.

Anyway,for a less controversial theme,check out:

"About Abubakari II and Mansa Musa(Moses in Arabic),famous Muslim Kings of the Mali Empire"


http://www.antisharia.com/2013/02/02/about-abubakari-ii-and-mansa-musamoses-in-arabicfamous-muslim-kings-of-the-mali-empire/

Foolster41 said...

@Minora: What about the fact that the quoran claims Moses and Jesus as prophets of Islam, but completely contradicts the Quoran and Hadiths? Of course "corruption" makes no sense since the bible we have today is the same as 200 years before Mohammad, and thus the same one Mohammad would have had. This has never been answered yet.

Samuel Green said...

Thank you everyone for your encouraging words and suggestions.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@ David

"Similarly, Zawadi may "do well" in a debate, but his arguments are horrible."

I beg to differ, if his arguments were so horrible, why would all of you (including Tony Costa) struggle tremendously against his arguments. Logically, if his arguments are horrible, you would destroy them immediately. Regarding the preservation of the Quran, he gives you four criteria to falsify the quran. Here they are:

1) Show that several companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) claimed that parts of the Qur’an that were meant to be part of the preserved Qur’an for future generations were lost.

2) Show that several companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) claimed that non-Quranic additions were introduced into the Qur’an’s final compilation and were accepted by the people as Qur’anic.

3) Show that several companions fought with each other and accused each other of tampering with the Qur’an and denying that what the other person said was Qur’anic was indeed Qur’anic.

4) Show that all the companions conspired to tamper with the Qur’an and falsify passages intentionally.


Nabeel couldn't refute Bassam in any way whatsoever in his debate with him on the topic (which by the way even non muslims have said Bassam won).

By the way, Bassam has responded to your "Who Killed Muhammad (pbuh)" video you did a while back. Here is the link:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_taking_of_poison


SGM said...

I couldn’t have explained it any better than David how the moslim debaters perform.

Another thing to point out is that when a Christian debator present a very strong argument, moslem debator will just laugh it off or joke about it. On top of that, majority of the moslem attendees will laugh with the debater and shout Allah Achbar, instead of answering the argument. The reason for this is that moslems have no answer, they are stuck. For fourteen hundred years, Christians have been asking them to provide the proof that Bible has been corrupted, however we have not seen one except that Quran says so. It is like, a fool who keep shouting, the crow is white the crow is white. And when you tell him look at it, it is black he will say, no the quran says it is black. You will reply, but look at it, it is black and it fits every definition of black. The moslem will reply, since the quran says so, it has to be black even though all the evidence is against it and there is no proof.

Moslems defy all logical reasoning when it comes to the Quran. One would think that in fourteen hundred years, they would come up with some reasonable or logical answer. Maybe they need another fourteen hundred years. When they do, like David said, "Well, if we wait for Muslim opponents with strong arguments and valid logic, I'm afraid this will be the end of Christian-Muslim debate in our world!" However, I guarantee you, they will never be able to because you can not defeat the true and the living God and His word the “Bible”.

All honor and glory and praise be to our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

David Wood said...

Samatar,

Excellent example of a horrible argument that would take up a lot of time in a debate and seem to Muslims to be a good argument even though it's absurd. Now let me give you my argument for the perfect preservation of the Gospels:

1) Show that several disciples of Jesus claimed that parts of the Gospels that were meant to be part of the preserved Gospels for future generations were lost.

2) Show that several disciples of Jesus claimed that non-Gospel additions were introduced into the Gospels' final compilation and were accepted by the people as Gospel.

3) Show that several disciples fought with each other and accused each other of tampering with the Gospels and denying that what the other person said was Gospel was indeed Gospel.

4) Show that all the companions conspired to tamper with the Gospels and falsify passages intentionally.

If you can't demonstrate these points, you must admit that the Gospels have been perfectly preserved! After all, you believe that the parallel argument establishes the preservation of the Qur'an!

But if you don't like that brilliant argument, let's turn to a different ancient book. Let's say, Homer's Odyssey.

1) Show that several companions of Homer claimed that parts of the Odyssey that were meant to be part of the preserved Odyssey for future generations were lost.

2) Show that several companions of Homer claimed that non-Odyssey additions were introduced into the Odyssey’s final compilation and were accepted by the people as Odyssey.

3) Show that several companions fought with each other and accused each other of tampering with the Odyssey and denying that what the other person said was Odyssey was indeed Odyssey.

4) Show that all the companions conspired to tamper with the Odyssey and falsify passages intentionally.

If you can't show us (1)-(4), you must admit that Homer's Odyssey has been perfectly preserved for nearly 2800 years (twice as long as your "perfectly preserved" Qur'an!).

Hopefully, Samatar, even you can recognize what an absurd, ridiculous, and in all other ways completely silly and illogical argument this is. If it can be used to show the perfect preservation of ANY ANCIENT BOOK, how good can the argument be?

But at the same time, you can see why such an argument would take up a great deal of time during a debate, diverting attention from the actual issues, and convince devout Muslims that a case has been established for the perfect preservation of the Qur'an.

Notice, everyone, that I asked for what Samatar would regard as Zawadi's BEST argument, and this is what we got!

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David Wood

"Are you forgetting about Bassam Zawadi. He has done extremely well against you, James white, and especially Nabeel Qureshi."

Samatar, are you speaking in terms of actual content or just delivery, personality, etc.? If you go by content, it is easy to refute many of his claims by quoting contradictory material from the sahih hadiths, for example. Also, one of the main defenses of refutation lie in knowing the context of the hadiths (some don't have any) and chronology of the Qu'ran. Chronology determines which verses are included in abrogation.

If you just look at things other than content, then some of the Muslim speakers will appear to do quite well. But, once we start to look at the logic behind the premises of their positions, we often see the downfall of the Muslim's presentation. Also, count ignorance of the audience as a plus for the Muslim in their evaluation. A vast majority of Muslims are ignorant of Christianity when it comes to understanding facts extracted from historical Christian sources. The reason for this lies in the Muslim's trust of their co-religionists in giving factual and contextual information concerning a given subject.They don't normally research for themselves independently and objectively.

Now contrast that with most Christian apologetics which by nature of Jesus' teachings would require us to seek the truth regardless of the implications. The reason that we don't fear the truth is that we have it. I am sure you won't agree; but, Jesus' standards of integrity, morality, accountability, etc. is a large part of our conscientious effort to be honest in our intellectual discernments. For a Muslim, such principles are honored on a sliding scale which depends upon the Muslim's need to defend Allah, Mohammad, and/or Islam. Any of these principles can be broken per Qu'ranic verses or hadiths in any given situation. That is why Islam is based upon moral relativism (a form of subjectivism) and Christianity distinguishes itself by trying to ascertain objectivism.

simple_truth said...

David Wood said...

"Samatar,

Excellent example of a horrible argument that would take up a lot of time in a debate and seem to Muslims to be a good argument even though it's absurd. Now let me give you my argument for the perfect preservation of the Gospels:
... "

This could be the start of an excellent treatise, David!

Samatar's kind of approach is no different than the 'show me in the Bible where Jesus says that He is God' defense. There is a logical fallacy for this but I can't remember what category it falls under.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

To start off, I never said that those are the only choices to prove the Quran hasn't been preserved, nor did I say it was Bassam best argument. But seeing as you haven't refuted them I will then assume you concede that point.

However, here is what I consider the best argument from Bassam, and it is quite simple really.

1. By perfect preservation, we mean that if the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was here with us today, he would say that no verse was falsely added to, or wrongly removed from the Quran.

2. The Quran was transmitted both Orally and by manuscript tradition. This makes the two keep a check on each other, which would eliminate any possible errors. The fact that some muslim companions (like Zaid) knew the entire Quran by heart, it would enable the Quran memorizers to keep a check on the written portion and vice versa. Imagine if there were people who memorized the new testament. This would eliminate many scribal errors from entering the final transmission of the text because you could always refer back to someone who knew by heart the contents of the scripture.

4. Regarding the written aspect of the Quran. Othman had 12 scribes (including Zaid)who wrote out the entire quran in copies, and sent the copies to many regions along with a companion who was an expert in the recitation of the Quran. Before the 12 scribes even started their copies, they had the Quran collected by zaid earlier when Abu Bakr was leading the muslim. While Zaid was collecting the Quran, Abu Bakr commanded Zaid to obtain documented evidence of the ayats to ensure they were written while the prophet (pbuh) was alive. Abu bakr also ordered that two witnesses make sure that the collection of Zaid was accurate. This Quran acted as a proof check for the 12 scribes when they were writing down and copying the Qurans they would later deliver to other regions.

4. Every muslim companion living at the time of the prophet (pbuh) agreed with the Quranic manuscript we have with us today. It is unanimous. Even those who were against Othman fully agreed with the content of the Quran (Including Ibn Mas'ud), which would be hard to believe if they so much had suspected that the Quran was tampered with. This point is extremely crucial, especially when we consider that the Quran was held very very high by the companions.

5. This leaves us two options. Either every companion living at the time of the prophet (pbuh) was wrong about the contents of the Quran, or they intentionally changed it. Now, to say that every muslim was wrong about the Quran would be absurd, especially when we consider that the Quran has both an oral and written transmission. We know that the muslims pretty much lived and breathed reciting the Quran everyday. Even today when the Imam mistakes a verse while he is reading there are about 20 people correcting him instantly. So that option can't be considered. The second option is that the muslims all decided to purposely changed the Quran, which they held so precious and important in their lives. Again, that would be absurd, therefore it leaves us with the choice that the Quran must have been preserved.

This is a very light summary of Bassam's argument for the preservation of the Quran. I could go into more detail but I'll just leave you with this for now. Does this sound like someone who is just speaking confidently, or does this sound like a rational and logical person who is providing evidence for the Quran which is reasonable and easily identifiable. I'll let you guys decide.

David Wood said...

Samatar,

Did you just say that I didn't refute the argument? You need to take a course in logic. At least read an introductory book. One of the most basic ways to refute an argument is to construct a parallel argument that leads to absurd consequences. This is exactly what I did when I used your argument to show that, following your criteria, virtually every book of antiquity turns out to be perfectly preserved.

As for your new argument, this is another opportunity to prove my original point about Muslims falling for silly arguments. Let's start with the obvious, and we'll proceed to the rest of your claims. You say that Zaid knew the entire Qur'an by heart. Give us your best source for this claim, and watch what I do with it.

I'll be waiting eagerly.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

"Did you just say that I didn't refute the argument?"

Slight miscommunication. By did not refute, I meant you attacked the use of those arguments, not the content of the argument itself.

"You say that Zaid knew the entire Qur'an by heart."

I must say that I find it odd that there were so many major points, and you just picked out a small minor point that even if you were correct, it doesn't disprove my main point whatsoever.

Anyways, I deduced that Zaid memorized the Quran from the very fact that he lived with the Prophet (pbuh), and watched him recite the Quran constantly. He was selected with the extremely important task of collecting the Quran after the battle of yamama, and Uthman chose zaid as one of the few scribes to jot the Quran down. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have memorized the Quran especially after the extremely difficult tasks he was given like compiling all the verses in the Quran which were written, and which he heard the prophet (pbuh) recite.

Nonetheless, what does it prove if Zaid did not memorize the whole Quran. I am not relying on one or two people here David. I am relying on the collective memory of all the muslim companions. And when you consider that no one disagreed with one chapter or verse of the Quran, that gives me and other muslims all the assurance we need to believe that the Quran was preserved.

David Wood said...

Samatar said: "Slight miscommunication. By did not refute, I meant you attacked the use of those arguments, not the content of the argument itself."

You're not making sense. An argument is good if the premises establish the conclusion. The premises of your argument, even if they were true, would not establish the conclusion (that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved). I proved this by showing that similar premises wouldn't establish the conclusion that other books were perfectly preserved. Hence, if your premises don't establish your conclusion, your argument fails. The argument you gave is horrible.

You say you find it odd that I focused on Zaid when you brought up so many points. If you read what I wrote, I said that we would address your points in turn. I began with the Zaid issue because it helps draw attention to how hopelessly biased you are.

Are you telling us that you don't have a single source that says Zaid had memorized the Qur'an? And yet you stated this assumption as if it were a fact, and you based part of your argument on this groundless assumption? And you wonder why we find your arguments weak and unpersuasive?

Now let's move on to the next point. Why did Uthman select Zaid to compile the Qur'an, when Muhammad told his followers to learn the Qur'an from four specific individuals? Why go to Zaid when Muhammad considered others more reliable? Give us clear, reliable quotations from your sources explaining why Zaid was chosen over Ibn Masud and Ubayy Ibn Kab.

Koala Bear said...

@Anil John - great idea.

David - contact Lauren Booth. She is the sister in law of Tony Blair the war monger. She is the poster woman for converts. That would be a great debate. I doubt she knows anything so won't be hard.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

"The premises of your argument, even if they were true, would not establish the conclusion (that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved)."

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Now remember, I never used those four criteria to prove that the Quran has been preserved. Rather, the purpose of them were to provide non muslims with ways in which they can prove the Quran to be false. For example lets take the one of the criteria:

> "Show that several companions fought with each other and accused each other of tampering with the Qur’an and denying that what the other person said was Qur’anic was indeed Qur’anic."

If you could prove from the narrations that companions accused eachother of tampering with the Quran, that would provide you with some strength in showing that the Quran was not preserved after all. We know how seriously the companions took the Quran, therefore, by showing that there were accusations of tampering, you would have a strong case.

"The argument you gave is horrible."

Now I disagree with your statement here. The reason I disagree is because we know that the companions were noted for narrating even the tiniest of details back then. Had there been accusations put forth against the Quran we would definitely expect to see it somewhere in the narrations. You I'm sure are well aware of the fact on the behavior of the muslim companions and how they narrated even the tiniest of details, hence the argument is valid.

"If you read what I wrote, I said that we would address your points in turn."

Fair enough. I look forward to it.


"Are you telling us that you don't have a single source that says Zaid had memorized the Qur'an? And yet you stated this assumption as if it were a fact, and you based part of your argument on this groundless assumption?"

How are my points groundless assumptions. My assumptions are based on very good reasons. Zaid was chosen by Abu bakr to collect the Quran. If he did not know the contents of the Quran very well, it would be impossible for him to know what to collect. If Abu bakr had come to me and told me to collect all the verses in the Quran into one book, it would be extremely difficult for me to do so because I have not memorized the entire Quran. I also noted that Zaid was chosen as one of the few scribes by Uthman. Again, it would be hard to believe that Zaid would be selected for such a difficult task if Zaid had not known the Quran. Again and again we see Zaid being chosen to do crucial tasks, and I doubt the greatest of companions ( Abu Bakr and Uthman) would select him if he did not know the Quran very well. To say these are groundless assumptions is absolutely absurd David.

"Now let's move on to the next point. Why did Uthman select Zaid to compile the Qur'an, when Muhammad told his followers to learn the Qur'an from four specific individuals?"

When learning the Quran, there are three things a muslim considers. First, memorizing the contents of the Quran. Second, Understanding what the verses mean. Third, Learning to recite the Quran properly. Now which of the three did they specialize in. Ubay for example was known for reciting the Quran. He had credibility for reciting the Quran well. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were the best when it came down to memorizing the Quran. Also, I must not again that I am not relying on a few people here. I am relying on the collective memories of all the muslim companions. Had Ibn Mas'ud been chosen by Uthman instead of Zaid, I would have no problem with it. Why? Because they were both held very highly by the prophet (pbuh) and the companions.

Foolster41 said...

@Samatar: Ok, so the Quoran is persevered, that's nice. It's still false because it claims to fulfill the gospel and OT (which our CURRENT version of is the same as in the time of Mohammad, at 100-200 years or so before Mohammad was born), but contradicts it!

Caricature said...

Samatar the problem is Muslim apologist are dishonest. The burden is on the Muslim. Bassam Zawadi is not only dishonest but an idiot. The Christian doesn't have to show you anything. The bible was around way before the Koran.

So Samatar it's simple:

Since you claim that the bible is corrupt and that the Koran is the final word of God, how would you reliably distuinguish your claim from a satanic delusion?

bob said...

The Islamic debating technique as described by the Holy Spirit (through Solomon):

"But the lips of a fool swallow him up; the words of his mouth begin with foolishness [false premises, assumptions/assertions/claims], and the end of his talk is raving madness [false/crazy, illogical conclusions]." Ecclesiastes 10:12, 13

A fool is described in the Scriptures as someone who rejects the wisdom and advice of the Holy Spirit in favour of his own selfish, corrupted-by-sin, damaged and blinded human reasoning.

"He who trusts in his own heart is a fool." Proverbs 28:26

A wise person is described as someone who respects, accepts and applies the wisdom and advice of the Holy Spirit as found in the scriptures of the Bible.

...for prophesy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. 2Peter 1:21

Melvyn Cyrus said...

@Samatar

you first have to show the historical reliability of your assertions about the companions. Most of it was laid down well after the time of Muhammad and the four caliphs. It is even debatable if it was Uthman that decided to compile the Qur'an. Robert Spencer contested most of the muslim claims on the compilation of the Qur'an in his debate (especially in his reply to Manou) along with David against Oma Bakhri and Amar Chaudahry, who as usual couldn't provide any logical answer. If you based your argumentation on facts that you cannot prove as historically sure, your argument remains weak. That's why David asked you about a source on Zaid. You didn't provide any and changed the topic. The same, I'm sure, would happen for all the other assertions you make. So you'd better provide your sources along with your assertions and show us that they are reliable.

But anyway, once again your arguments are weak. By using a similar strategy, you can prove Christianity too. Paul knew Peter, James and John who were the columns (see Epistles to Galatians accepted as authentic by almost all scholars) and knew Jesus. So how can you say that Paul corrupted christianity? According to the same epistle, the disciples of Jesus agreed with Paul and supported him in his missionary endeavor. You have several other 1st century sources asserting that Paul and the apostles of Jesus had the same message (Polycarp for instance). I know it's not an exact parallel of the argument, but it makes more sense that all your stuff about people memorizing the Qur'an that proves that the Qur'an is preserved. In any case, we have here a one step Isnad!!! Much better that your Muslim X heard from Y who heard from Z who heard from... and so on. I'm pretty sure all your assertions about the preservation fall into that category. And then you have also contradictory claims in those very sources you're relying on. There are scores of claims about the corruption of the Qur'an, but you just ignore them as non-reliable, selecting only those that purport your claims.

Second, you're just assuming that those people wouldn't change the Qur'an, but that's also a based assumption. Why would people change the message of the Gospel? I could also make a similar argument and claim that the Gospel of Jesus was the most important thing in their life and that there's no way they would change it.
The history of the compilation of the Qur'an has not been historically elucidated. You're basing on traditions. The Qur'an has been compiled gradually and relies on a plethora of sources (Biblical canonical and apocryphal sources, pagan traditions...). God knows what Uthman and his scribes did! They may have well edited the Qur'an and laid down their own version. If u have the right to assume that some people did the same with the Gospel, not only the text but even the core of the message, why shouldn't I have the right to assume that they did the same with the text of the Qur'an only (preserving more or less the original message).

Melvyn Cyrus said...

Watch Robert Spencer's presentation:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/12/robert-spencer-origins-of-quran.html

especially from min 35 (about Zaid).

jonnykzj said...

@Samuel Green

Hi bro may God strengthen you bro. Just wished I could have a talk with you before you go into the debate coz bro you need to be careful, this guy Zakir knows how to HEIGHTEN THE EMOTIONS of the people such that theyll accept his simplistic and deceiving analogies. BRO you gotta do that right back. Should he do that take one of those xamples and just tear it apart ALSO SHOWING PASSION AND EMOTION such that he'd know that he's not the only one who can do that. Should he start uisng his "in chapter nr this versr nr tht" slogan U GO RIGHT FOR THT TOO n xpose the quran thereby. Again wish u all the best n may God bless you.

SGM said...

@ Samatar,
Your arguments are weak and fail the test of logic. I would like to point out one thing. For a moment, let’s assume that your arguments are logically correct.

If we apply your arguments to the Bible, we can prove (according to you) that it has been preserved without a doubt. Now here is the question, first, since Bible is fully preserved by applying your logic, then do you believe that Quran is not the word of God since it contradicts the Bible? Secondly, even if we say that applying your arguments to both the Bible and the quran, we can prove that both books are preserved 100%, then you have to admit that the Allah of the quran is not the God of the Bible. If God of the Bible and Allah of the quran are the same then their message could not contradict, whereas, it does.

The true and living God can not contradict himself. You see, no matter where you turn, Islam fails. Therefore Islam cannot be the religion of the true and living God. You are told numerous times that God of the Bible is the true and the living everlasting God. You will have no excuse on the judgment day why you didn't believe on Him.

Melvyn Cyrus said...

@SGM

that's clear!

The main fallacies are:

- as u point that one can prove the preservation of the Bible with, if not exactly the same argument, at least a very similar one. I tried to do the same with the pauline message. By employing Muslim criteria laid out by Samatar, you prove easily the veracity of the gospel preached by Paul. There is no room for corruption of the original message.

- second, Samatar still has to prove the reliability of the traditions he's relying on. The earliest source we have on Muhammad is Ibn Ishaak's sir a and modern Muslims don't like it. All the traditions they rely on are of the type A heard from B who hear from C who heard from D... . the whole being collected at least two centuries after Muhammad!!! I sincerely prefer the reliability of Paul's testimony!

Caricature said...

Looks like Samatar has fled the scene again.

He problaby went to a quiet place to imagine his prophets inability to read.

You know Muslism rave over this stuff.

It's hilarious.

aaron said...

@ samuel
another good suggestion is refer to writings from the early church fathers

SGM said...

Melvyn Cyrus just jogged my memory by stating “the traditions they rely on are of the type A heard from B who hear from C who heard from D…” It has been proven many times that a message thru verbal communication changes when passed from one person to another. In a room if you whisper a sentence in a one person’s ear, by the time it reaches 7th or 8th person, it is completely different. This happens in one room with a small number of people. And here muslims are claiming from last fourteen hundred years that this is their best argument in support of quran's preservation? Come on!!!!!

Another thing I can’t understand which muslims claim is the “science of hadith”. Are they saying that it is something like E = mc2 . Many debators have claimed this but no one has ever explained it. Some hadith narrations are 5 to 6 person long. What science do the moslims use to go back to the original narrator and confirm what he is saying is the truth? I have heard that there are hundreds of books written about this science. It must be more difficult than the Einstein’s theory.

Tom said...

I believe we Christians are not using our God driven wisdom but the "missed used/misguided", believe that we show "calm, love, peace, tolerance, GRACE", even in the face of outrageoulsy deceit & lies!

muslims make the unashamed claim that Paul is a false Prophet when we HAVE very clearly recorded details as to how Paul was anointed By our Lord Jesus and yet we dont make ANY CONCERTED effort to demolish the unverified, detailess claim that they make about muhammad, who should be tested BASED on Biblical criteria!

I believe poster SGM brought up a very interesting observation how many Prophets were foretold?
John the Baptist was foretold so that He could point to who is the "Lamb of God"!
So, muslims say the OT foretold muhammad, so which parts foretell Messiah Jesus, John the Baptist? Isaiah? They dont even have him listed as a Prophet!

Why did the Bible not explain there will be an "unverified outsider" prophet to come, as the Bible will leave identifiable marks to something as crucial as this!

"A Prophet like Moses", was there any record during the birth of muhammad a command to kill all male babies which took place during the time Of Moses & Our Saviour Jesus Christ!
Where is the debate?

We are all too often distracted by their "verbal diahorhea"!