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

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

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

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

Nadir Ahmed vs. David Wood: "Does Islam Promote Violence Towards Non-Muslims?"

OPENING STATEMENTS


REBUTTALS/CROSSFIRE


Q&A/CONCLUSIONS

Nadir Ahmed Declares: Shabir Ally and Ahmed Deedat Are Kafirs!

As everyone knows, Nadir Ahmed has been going around claiming that Shabir Ally's son has been cursed with blindness because Shabir supports Swoon Theory. Nadir has been criticized quite harshly (by both Muslims and Christians) for this sick claim, and he is now desperately trying to clean up the mess he's made. For instance, Nadir said in a phone conversation with Ehteshaam that he doesn't know whether Shabir has been cursed (Note: Wouldn't this admission demand a public apology? Where's the apology to Shabir?). Nadir has also claimed here that Ahmed Deedat was not cursed by God (despite Nadir's statement that he will proclaim Allah's curse consistently, whether he sees a Muslim or a Christian suffer).

It's clear, however, that Nadir is simply trying to avoid the backlash from his fellow Muslims, and that he does believe that Shabir has been cursed. Indeed, someone recently sent me a dialogue with Nadir in which everyone's least favorite Muslim apologist declares that Swoon Theory is kufr (a sign of unbelief)!

Ali_wa3ad: how many of you believe in the swoon theory
LifeBeyondEarth: "I hope the time is not far off when I shall be able to unite all the wise and educated men of all the countries and establish a uniform regime based on the principles of Qur'an which alone are true and which alone can lead men to happiness." Napolean Bonaparte
nadir_ahmed: mashalaah
Ali_wa3ad: nadir ahmed?
LifeBeyondEarth: Khalif (Caliph) Al-Ma'mun's period of rule (813 - 833 C.E.) may be considered the 'golden age' of science and learning. He had always been devoted to books and to learned pursuits. His brilliant mind was interested in every form of intellectual activity. Not only poetry but also philosophy, theology, astronomy, medicine and law all occupied his time.” Sir John Bagot Glubb
LIGHT SABER: what's the swoon theory?
LAIZY:
dsl_gh: LifeBeyondEarth stop flooding the text
Ibn Anwar Al-Shafie: 39 years = France Islamic Republic
Ali_wa3ad: are you aware of what people are doing to you on answeringmuslims.com
nadir_ahmed: the swoon theory is kufr
Ali_wa3ad: is that why you think god cursed shabir alleys son?
skypilot117: Ibn Anwar, that won't be happening, Frenchmen are far too protective of their culture and language to ever let Islam be anything but one of the religions in its country
nadir_ahmed: Ali - dont worry... those kuffar are SCARED TO DEATH TO CONFRONT ME
nadir_ahmed: RAISE YOUR HAND ALI
nadir_ahmed: YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN HIDING UNDER A MUSLIM NICK
Ali_wa3ad: im not a chirstian
Ali_wa3ad: im angry at you
nadir_ahmed: RAISE YOUR HAND
Ali_wa3ad: even sami is against you
nadir_ahmed: LETS HEAR YOU AT THE MIC
Ali_wa3ad: and he has a site defending islam

Now here's the problem. If someone believes something that is kufr, he is a kafir (an infidel or unbeliever). There is an exception, however. If someone believes in something that is kufr because of faultless ignorance (e.g. because he lives in an area without an imam to guide him), he may still be considered a Muslim. If, however, the person has had sufficient exposure to the facts, kufr makes him a kafir.

Nadir has claimed that Swoon Theory is kufr. This means that any Muslim who maintains Swoon Theory after being exposed to the evidence is a kafir. But Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally, Ahmed Deedat, Shadid Lewis, Ehteshaam Gulam, and all Ahmadis have defended Swoon Theory. Thus, according to Nadir, Shabir Ally and Ahmed Deedat are kafirs!

If you think that's bad, wait until my next post on Nadir. Based on some articles he just sent me, I can now say that, according to Nadir, (1) Muhammad was under God's curse, (2) Allah is totally incompetent, and (3) the Qur'an is a book of lies. One wonders how a Muslim apologist can make such claims, but the evidence shows that Nadir is doing everything in his power to bring down Islam and Islam's greatest apologists. I'm amazed that so many Muslims are still putting up with this, and that so few (e.g. Yahya and Sami) are speaking out against Nadir.

Rafael Princ vs. Nadir Ahmed: Four Dialogues

I know that everyone is sick of Nadir, and that these posts may seem to be a waste of time. But the benefits will be extremely significant. Once all the facts are laid out, and all of the materials are collected, everything will be put together on a single site. Thus, whenever Nadir attempts to debate someone, or to speak in public, or to rail against people on PalTalk, he will be bombarded with the facts, which will be readily available to all. This will put an end once and for all to Nadir's self aggrandizement.

People are continuing to send me materials on Nadir. In this post, I'd like to consider Nadir's dealings with Rafael Princ, whom Nadir has backed down from repeatedly. (So much for Nadir's claim that everyone is running from him. In the following exchanges, we see that Nadir is the one running.)

DIALOGUE ONE: NADIR BACKS DOWN

Let's begin with an audio file, which can be heard by clicking here. Notice that Rafael challenges Nadir to debate him on the Bible and the Qur'an, and that Nadir changes the subject and backs down immediately.

DIALOGUE TWO: NADIR IS THE WORLD'S GREATEST MUSLIM DEBATER (IN HIS OWN MIND)

In this next exchange, Nadir declares that he is the greatest Muslim debater in the world. He also calls Shabir Ally a "fool" (not to mention a heretic) and says that all Muslims agree on this. (I find this strange, since when I attend a Shabir Ally debate, I see hundreds of Muslims there to support him. But when I attend a Nadir Ahmed debate, we can't even bribe Muslims to show up.)

rafa-el_1: up for a little debate now?
nadir_ahmed: wel.. kind of busy
nadir_ahmed: i thought you will invite me to your church
rafa-el_1: i need too practise material on you before debating this in public
rafa-el_1: yes I will
nadir_ahmed:
nadir_ahmed: ok.. when i receive the invitation you can practice on me
nadir_ahmed: you now know my arugments
nadir_ahmed: soo youre different
rafa-el_1: I already have rebutels too all of them
rafa-el_1: but the future will tell
nadir_ahmed: yea i know
rafa-el_1: nahh I will debate in januari the supject..original sin part of islam?
rafa-el_1: a hole other subject i will be dabting with you about
nadir_ahmed: ok
nadir_ahmed: do you plan to come to america ?
rafa-el_1: my first trip is too the UK...Will be talking with jay about the possibility's of debating in the usa
nadir_ahmed: ic
nadir_ahmed: do yo think jay is a good debater ?
rafa-el_1: average
nadir_ahmed: you might be able to land a job
nadir_ahmed: in anti-islamic apologetics
nadir_ahmed: like jay and sam
nadir_ahmed: just thnk you can get paid for the work you enjoy
rafa-el_1: That is not the kind of career I seek
nadir_ahmed: what kind of career do you want ?
rafa-el_1: I have amy master degree in psychology..this is a side thing for me
nadir_ahmed: ok
nadir_ahmed: do you think jay would support shamon for a debate ?
rafa-el_1: I think he would
nadir_ahmed: y?
rafa-el_1: because too be fair...sam is the one of the leading apoligist(against islam) out there
nadir_ahmed: but does jay think so ?
rafa-el_1: I don't think he will deny that sam is a great debator
rafa-el_1: but will ask him
nadir_ahmed: hm.. but i really dont see them supporting each other
nadir_ahmed: i think maybe
nadir_ahmed: they have different
nadir_ahmed: views
nadir_ahmed: or something
rafa-el_1: some seek honour and fame in it
rafa-el_1: others don't
nadir_ahmed: who do you think do?
rafa-el_1: I am not able too judge that
rafa-el_1: who you think is the best islamic debatopr out there
nadir_ahmed: me
rafa-el_1: besides yourself
nadir_ahmed: who do yo believe is the best islamic debater ?
rafa-el_1: depends which topic
nadir_ahmed: overall
nadir_ahmed: and tell the truth
rafa-el_1: on biblical subjects shabir ally....but he is coward too defend the quran
nadir_ahmed: lo
nadir_ahmed: lol
nadir_ahmed: you lied
nadir_ahmed: shabir is a fool
nadir_ahmed: and all muslism agree on that
nadir_ahmed: so you lied
rafa-el_1: shabir is a coward regarding his own Quran
rafa-el_1: you asked my opinion
nadir_ahmed: you lied about shabir and the bibe
nadir_ahmed: bible
nadir_ahmed: and you lied
rafa-el_1: so what got the opinion of all muslims got too do with it
nadir_ahmed: you know very well that shabir is a weak debator
rafa-el_1: so who you think is a good debater(besides yourself)
nadir_ahmed: and a heretic
nadir_ahmed: and a heretic
nadir_ahmed: almost apostate
rafa-el_1: isn't he a salafi like yourself
nadir_ahmed: hey.. i have to get some work done
nadir_ahmed: honesty is what will make you win
nadir_ahmed: and Glorify God
nadir_ahmed: not deception
nadir_ahmed: remember that
rafa-el_1: nadir we will see when you come here
rafa-el_1: with a duo respect..the sam shamoun debate wasn't anything compared what I will do with you
rafa-el_1: but with love
nadir_ahmed: shamon was humiliated
nadir_ahmed: i like that debate
nadir_ahmed: he huffs and puffs
rafa-el_1: me too
nadir_ahmed: and could not prove anything
nadir_ahmed:
rafa-el_1: lol ..he clearly was victorious
nadir_ahmed: sure..in style
nadir_ahmed: he won
nadir_ahmed: and charisma
nadir_ahmed:
nadir_ahmed: ok.. we will see what you can do
rafa-el_1: Inshallah
nadir_ahmed: ok... gota go
nadir_ahmed: take care
rafa-el_1: you too
nadir_ahmed is now offline.

DIALOGUE THREE: NADIR BACKS DOWN AGAIN

As everyone who interacts with Nadir knows, he seems to follow a standard pattern, which consists of the following steps:

Step One: Nadir challenges Christian X to a debate in an extremely boastful, rude manner. If Christian X refuses to debate because of Nadir's foul language, constant insults, lack of credentials, and lack of Muslim support, Nadir says that Christian X is running from his arguments.

Step Two: If Christian X, for whatever reason, agrees to debate, Nadir attempts to twist and mangle the topic and the debate format until the debate becomes absolutely unacceptable. If Christian X refuses to accept the debate due to Nadir's unreasonable and absurd terms, Nadir says that Christian X is running from his arguments. (For more on this, see "Nadir Ahmed's Amazing Debate Format.")

Step Three: If Christian X agrees to Nadir's outrageous terms and goes through with the debate, Nadir will be completely crushed in front of the audience. At the end of such humiliating defeats, Nadir will challenge Christian X to another debate. By this time, of course, Christian X is thoroughly fed up with Nadir and never wants to deal with him again. Christian X has also already defeated Nadir in public, which makes further humiliation unnecessary. At this point, Nadir declares to everyone that Christian X has refused to engage in another debate with him, and that this can only mean that Christian X is running from his arguments. (To see some examples of this, watch the end of Nadir's debates with Sam Shamoun and James White, where Nadir, sensing his total defeat, challenges both opponents to further debates. Nadir later says that they're running from him when they refuse.)

The following dialogue is a good illustration of Step Two. Rafael agrees to debate Nadir on whether Islam is from God, but Nadir insists that Rafael must not be allowed to offer evidence against Islam! Can anyone even imagine such a format? Wouldn't Muslims laugh at me if I said: "All right, we're going to have a debate on the Deity of Christ. I'm going to offer reasons for believing in the Deity of Christ, and my opponent is free to discuss my reasons. But under no circumstances is my opponent allowed to present evidence against the Deity of Christ." Nadir was obviously attempting to make the format unbearable, so that Rafael wouldn't agree to Nadir's ridiculous terms (at which point Nadir declares that Rafael is running from his arguments).

rafa-el_1: are you interested too debate me in CP his room?
rafa-el_1: there will be aprox 120 people
nadir_ahmed: topic ?
rafa-el_1: the evidence for islma
rafa-el_1: islam
nadir_ahmed: and christianity.
nadir_ahmed: sure
rafa-el_1: nope you challenged james whit on the topic
nadir_ahmed: did you forget about Christianity ?
rafa-el_1: evidence for islam
nadir_ahmed: ok
rafa-el_1: so that will be our topic
nadir_ahmed: fine
nadir_ahmed: fine
nadir_ahmed: but no red dot
rafa-el_1: Mashallah
nadir_ahmed: and we will concentrate on the evidence i present
nadir_ahmed: and you must knock it down
rafa-el_1: nope
rafa-el_1: I will bringn my evidence that islam isn't from God
nadir_ahmed: like i did with keith and james white
nadir_ahmed: that is a different debate
nadir_ahmed: trying to disprove islam is a different issue
nadir_ahmed: rather than focusing on it's evidences
nadir_ahmed: make up your mind
nadir_ahmed: remember..
rafa-el_1: the topic will be...Is islam a religion from God
nadir_ahmed: did i attack PAUL?
nadir_ahmed: ?
nadir_ahmed: in the jame white debate
nadir_ahmed: or
nadir_ahmed: with Keith hopkinds
nadir_ahmed: i NEVER attackd paul
rafa-el_1: you are too ignorant too attack paul
nadir_ahmed: or tried to disprove him
rafa-el_1: thats why you were smoked in those 2 debates
nadir_ahmed: well..i dont think so
nadir_ahmed: soo
nadir_ahmed: rather... i attacked
nadir_ahmed: what Christians present as evidence
nadir_ahmed: thats it
nadir_ahmed: however, I can disprove Paul
nadir_ahmed: easily
rafa-el_1: i will bring my objections
nadir_ahmed: . but that is a different debate
rafa-el_1: you will knock them down
rafa-el_1: If you knock down just 1 of mine arguments
rafa-el_1: I will become muslim
nadir_ahmed: that has nothing to do with the scientific, prophetic archaelogical evidence for Islam
nadir_ahmed: you are silly man.. who cares what you become
rafa-el_1: my arguments will contain science,historical etc
nadir_ahmed: ok... so you are running away from the evidence for Islam - need confirmation
nadir_ahmed: yes!
nadir_ahmed: i will save this pm.. a young boy wants to see it
nadir_ahmed: he has some questions
nadir_ahmed:
rafa-el_1: I am challenging you sir
rafa-el_1: too debate me
nadir_ahmed: not on our evidences
rafa-el_1: is islam a religion of allah
nadir_ahmed: this boy named salman is smart
nadir_ahmed: he can see through your deception
nadir_ahmed: aalll the evidence points towards ---> Islam
rafa-el_1: nadir...if he is smart..he would see that you are the 1 running away
nadir_ahmed:
nadir_ahmed: thank yo
nadir_ahmed: must go
nadir_ahmed: last time
rafa-el_1: nadir come too the room...And I will show you that the Quran is unscientific,unhistorical etc
nadir_ahmed: you are not able to deal with the evidence which i present to you
nadir_ahmed: simple
nadir_ahmed: you are defeated.
nadir_ahmed: go away
rafa-el_1: bring it
nadir_ahmed: are you sure ?
nadir_ahmed:
rafa-el_1: nadir..everybody is laughing at you on platalk
nadir_ahmed: you must only deal with the evidence which i presnt to you
rafa-el_1: even muslims told me that they were embaresseed too see you run from me
nadir_ahmed: i dont think so
nadir_ahmed: i think you are dreaming
rafa-el_1: just ask around
nadir_ahmed: sure did
rafa-el_1: you will see
nadir_ahmed: they loooooooooooooooooove my debate with CP
nadir_ahmed: i get flowers and kisses all the time
nadir_ahmed: after i am done with you
nadir_ahmed: then I will smash that coward CP
rafa-el_1: done with me? than you have too stop running
nadir_ahmed: arab christains are a true joy
rafa-el_1: and fave me
rafa-el_1: face*
nadir_ahmed: you are a small potato
nadir_ahmed: actaully
nadir_ahmed: i should put you on ignore
rafa-el_1: haha
nadir_ahmed: but yo are an arab christian
nadir_ahmed: and they are the most fun
nadir_ahmed: just becase of that
nadir_ahmed: i talk to you
rafa-el_1: doesn't it suck that I can read your Quran and you don't?
nadir_ahmed: because God has placed a very special type of stupidity in the Arab chrisitan
nadir_ahmed: it will do you nooooooooo good
nadir_ahmed: hey
nadir_ahmed: gota go
nadir_ahmed: take care
nadir_ahmed: ill come looking for you
rafa-el_1: pffff
nadir_ahmed: when the time is near.
rafa-el_1: keep running
nadir_ahmed: cya
rafa-el_1: run forest run

DIALOGUE FOUR: NADIR SAYS THAT CHRISTIANS ARE RUNNING FROM HIM, RAFAEL ONCE AGAIN AGREES TO DEBATE HIM, AND NADIR CHANGES THE SUBJECT

In the following dialogue, Nadir claims that he has a "huge support base." Where is this support base? Nadir once had to come on this blog under a false name to pretend that someone supports him.

Notice that Rafael again agrees to debate Nadir. What does Nadir do? Does he accept? Of course not. He changes the subject and tries to say that Sam Shamoun (who crushed him horribly here) is running from him. Follow Nadir's reasoning (or lack thereof). Nadir has a man repeatedly asking to debate him, and Nadir keeps backing down and changing the subject. Then, when he changes the subject, it's to show that everyone is scared to debate him!

Nadir is certainly one of a kind. We couldn't invent stuff like this if we tried.

rafa-el_1: lol...there are muslims that took that video serious?
rafa-el_1: wow they are dumber than I thought
nadir_ahmed: u bet
nadir_ahmed: in fact,
nadir_ahmed: there was a muslim from texas who was doubting his faith
nadir_ahmed: but now he is convinced
nadir_ahmed: after seeing athe christians run away
nadir_ahmed: he will be adding his testimony
nadir_ahmed: to that
nadir_ahmed: james white
nadir_ahmed: hasbeen expoosed
nadir_ahmed: badly
rafa-el_1: soo this 'muslim' doubted his faith...but when He sees a christian not willing too debate that topic WIT YOU. he becomes sure of his faith?
rafa-el_1: wow...talk about blind faith
nadir_ahmed: and sam shamoun
nadir_ahmed: i told him
nadir_ahmed: the evidence is unchallengable
nadir_ahmed: and the christians are hiding
nadir_ahmed: soo
rafa-el_1: I will detae you on that topic
nadir_ahmed: he saw it for himself
rafa-el_1: np
nadir_ahmed: hey
nadir_ahmed: did you know
nadir_ahmed: that when i went to challenge sam shamon
nadir_ahmed: about 2 years ago
nadir_ahmed: i went to his office
nadir_ahmed: and he hid in a back room ?
nadir_ahmed: i had 2 girls with me
rafa-el_1: you went too a mens working place?
nadir_ahmed: and htey were laughing at him
nadir_ahmed: sams
nadir_ahmed: shamouns
nadir_ahmed: syes
nadir_ahmed: yes
rafa-el_1: dor you have no respect?
rafa-el_1: that is called invadind privacy
nadir_ahmed: i was very respectful
nadir_ahmed: not really
nadir_ahmed: but
nadir_ahmed: he HID IN A BACK ROOM!
nadir_ahmed:
nadir_ahmed: soo i stood around
rafa-el_1: first of all...I don't believe you,but when this is infact true,it doesn't proof anything
nadir_ahmed: for about 35 minutes
nadir_ahmed: please ask him
nadir_ahmed: he will admit to it
rafa-el_1: like I already stated..I am more than happy too debate muhammad
nadir_ahmed: becausse all his friends were asking him to come out
nadir_ahmed: but he wouldnt
nadir_ahmed: we are talking about sam
nadir_ahmed: not you
rafa-el_1: ok sam doesn't want too debate you
nadir_ahmed: email him
rafa-el_1: so?
nadir_ahmed: HE HID IN A BACK ROOM!!
nadir_ahmed: LOL
rafa-el_1: so what?
nadir_ahmed: ahahaahah
nadir_ahmed: hahahaha
nadir_ahmed: omg
rafa-el_1: what point are you trying too make
rafa-el_1: or are you just trying too boast?
nadir_ahmed: boasting.. laughing..
nadir_ahmed: yea
nadir_ahmed: it is real incidents like that
rafa-el_1: nadir...everybody in the room and paltalk laughs at you for running from me
nadir_ahmed: which speak louder than words
rafa-el_1: you don't see me baosting about that
nadir_ahmed: i dont think anyone sees you as a condenter
nadir_ahmed: contender
nadir_ahmed: or someone who is a great challenge
nadir_ahmed: sorry
nadir_ahmed: but u are just a guy on paltalk
nadir_ahmed: nothing mroe
nadir_ahmed: more
nadir_ahmed: and your apologists
nadir_ahmed: run away
nadir_ahmed: from me
rafa-el_1: nadir...after your debate with sam shamoun,james white...you have became a laughing stoke
nadir_ahmed: james white
nadir_ahmed: sam shamoun
rafa-el_1: only david wood is willing too debate you
nadir_ahmed: talk is cheap
nadir_ahmed: the young man from texas didnt buy it
nadir_ahmed: and no one will
nadir_ahmed: keep it up
nadir_ahmed: ok
nadir_ahmed: gota go
nadir_ahmed: dont forget to save this pm
nadir_ahmed: and send it to fat boy shamoun
rafa-el_1: nadir just want too respond section of the debates you hadwith them
nadir_ahmed: and he will accept
rafa-el_1: even the muslims are apoligizing for you
nadir_ahmed: that he hid
nadir_ahmed: yawn
nadir_ahmed: i got a huge support base
rafa-el_1: loool
nadir_ahmed: good bye
rafa-el_1: most muslims I talk too aren't taking you seriously
nadir_ahmed is now offline.

These four dialogues show Nadir's complete inconsistency. When Nadir challenges someone to a debate, the conversation usually goes something like this:

NADIR: "Hey, Mr. Christian Scholar! You have to debate me! I'm Islam's greatest debater! All other Muslim debaters suck compared to me! And if you don't debate me, you're a coward! Now debate me so I can expose your filthy religion!"

CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR: "Wow, you behave like a child. I'm simply not interested in debating people who behave like children. Besides, I contacted some Muslims about you, and most of them have no clue who you are. Those who know you told me that you're one of the worst debaters who's ever lived, and that the Muslim community has absolutely no respect for you. Beyond this, you have no credentials whatsoever, you constantly insult your opponents, and some people think you're insane."

NADIR: "LOL! LLLLOOOOOOOLLLLL! I knew you were a coward! You're running from my arguments! Just like all the other Christian cowards who backed down from me! Look, when someone challenges you to a debate, you have to accept! If you don't accept, you're a fat coward! It's that simple! Coward! Coward! Coward!"

But what happens when Nadir is challenged? As we've seen, the conversations go something like this:

CHRISTIAN: "Nadir, I challenge you to debate me."

NADIR: "Um, let's talk about someone else. Hey, that Sam Shamoun is running from me!"

CHRISTIAN: "You mean the same Sam Shamoun who humiliated you in one of the most one-sided debates in history?"

NADIR: "Yeah, that's him. He's scared to death of me. I went to his office and he hid from me."

CHRISTIAN: "So are you going to debate me or not?"

NADIR: "Not so fast. There's some other Christian on the internet who said something false about me one time. I'd like to focus on him for a while."

CHRISTIAN: "He doesn't want to debate you. But I do. I'm right here. Come on. Let's do this."

NADIR: "Um, did I mention Sam Shamoun already? He's scared of me."

If someone refuses to debate Nadir because he has no credentials, is a complete liar, has no support from the Muslim community, has no knowledge of either Christianity or Islam, and behaves like a nine-year-old boy, Nadir says he must be scared. Yet when someone challenges Nadir, again and again, to debate a basic topic, and Nadir actually runs out of the room, this is somehow completely reasonable. Then Nadir goes around telling everyone that Christians are scared of him. Is it just me, or is this absolutely pathetic?

Nadir Ahmed, Ahmed Deedat, and the Curse of God

As we've seen, Nadir Ahmed claims that Allah struck Shabir Ally's son blind because Shabir believes that Jesus was nailed to a cross. It's clear to everyone that Nadir is attacking Shabir because of envy and jealousy. Yet Nadir maintains that he is simply being consistent. That is, since he gladly declares that people like me have been cursed by Allah, he must be consistent and claim that people like Shabir have also been cursed.

So which explanation of Nadir's horrendous actions is correct? Is Nadir attacking Shabir out of envy? Or is he attacking Shabir because he wants to be consistent?

There is a simple way to prove that Nadir is acting from jealousy, and it has been noted by two contributors in our comments section (one Christian and one Muslim). If Nadir is really consistent, he will have to proclaim that Ahmed Deedat was also cursed by God. Deedat, like Shabir Ally, embraced Swoon Theory and helped popularize it among Muslims. In 1996, Deedat suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed and unable to speak or swallow for the rest of his life.

Is Nadir willing to say that Deedat was cursed by Allah? Of course not. Even Nadir wouldn't dare to say such a thing. This proves, conclusively, that he isn't attacking Shabir from consistency, but from a desire to bring down apologists who are obviously better and more famous than he is.

Nadir Ahmed Declares: "Shabir Ally's Son Is Cursed!"

It's no secret that Nadir Ahmed will attack any apologist who is obviously superior to him (i.e. every apologist in the world). But it's also true that the better the apologist, the more Nadir will want to bring him down--by any means necessary.

Take, for instance, my first debate with Sami Zaatari. Many people were shocked at Nadir's attack on Sami during the Q&A period. Nadir suggested that Christians should not debate Sami because he is not equipped for debate. Why would Nadir make such a claim? The answer is simple. A day earlier, Nadir had been utterly humiliated in a debate with James White, as even Muslims will admit. Yet Muslims were generally quite pleased with Sami's performance. So what does a self-centered, selfish, power-hungry egomaniac like Nadir do when he is obviously outshined by a much younger apologist? For Nadir, there was only one option: Attack Sami.

Those who have dealt with Nadir in the past know that this is nothing new, for he has a long history of attacking Muslim apologists, often in an extremely offensive manner. Over the past few years, for instance, Nadir has called Shabir Ally a "dummy," a "loser," and "weak-minded." Nadir even said that debating Shabir Ally is like debating someone's grandmother. But these baseless insults are nothing compared to Nadir's most recent tirade against Shabir.

In a desperate attack, Nadir has claimed that Shabir's son has been cursed by God because Shabir believes in Swoon Theory (the view that Jesus was crucified, but that He survived crucifixion). According to Nadir, Shabir's son is blind because God struck him due to Shabir's beliefs. Indeed, Nadir maintains that Muslims must believe that Shabir's son has been cursed by God, since to believe otherwise is to be inconsistent. Nadir says:

Muslim have no problem accepting that Anis Shorosh was punished, or Jimmy Swaggart was punished..Muslim have no problem saying that ... so now be consistent... be honest.. and say the same thing about Shabir Aly.

And praise the Lord, the Christians have testified to to honesty and even handedness - I applauded the demise of Morey, Sharosh, Wood, and when Christians confronted me about other Muslims... I did not hold a double standard and use the same standard to judge them...

My response to why Allah punished Shabir Aly, or other Muslims... it is the curse of the cross. They embraced it, and Allah punished them. Now all those Muslim who mocked Sharosh and the Christians... need to come forward and admit the same thing about Aly.

It is a matter of honesty... and we can not have a double standard.

Now let's follow Nadir's reasoning through to the logical conclusion. Shabir defends Swoon Theory. Instead of striking Shabir with blindness, Allah struck Shabir's son. So Nadir believes that God punishes one person for the sins of another. But since Nadir believes that God can punish person X for the sins of person Y, why would Nadir object to the cross at all? And if there's no good reason to object to the cross, why would Allah strike Shabir's son because Shabir took a different position on an ambiguous verse of the Qur'an?

We should keep in mind that the Hadith supports Nadir's view that God punishes people for the sins of others:

Sahih Muslim 6666--Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit in his stead a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire.

Sahih Muslim 6668--Allah's Messenger [said]: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with as heavy sins as a mountain, and Allah would forgive them and He would place in their stead the Jews and the Christians.

Nadir, however, believes that parents' sins are paid for, not by Jews and Christians, but by their own babies! This is an interesting view for a Muslim to hold, considering verses such as the following:

Qur'an 6:164--Say: What! Shall I seek a Lord other than Allah? And He is the Lord of all things; and no soul earns (evil) but against itself, and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another; then to your Lord is your return, so He will inform you of that in which you differed.

Qur'an 17:15--Whoever goes aright, for his own soul does he go aright; and whoever goes astray, to its detriment only does he go astray; nor can the bearer of a burden bear the burden of another, nor do We chastise until We raise an Apostle.

Nadir, it seems, has gone against the clear teachings of the Qur'an. But if Allah blinded Shabir's son because Shabir reinterpreted an ambiguous verse, what will Allah do to Nadir when Nadir ignores obvious statements of the Qur'an? Perhaps Allah will strike Nadir's career, and cause him to be despised by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and atheists around the world. Oops. It's too late to do that.

I know that Muslims in general are repulsed by Nadir's antics. But I have no clue why only a small handful of Muslims (e.g. Yahya Seymour and Sami Zaatari) are openly speaking out against him. I disagree with William Lane Craig on various issues. I also disagree with James White. Yet it would never occur to me to say that these men are cursed because they disagree with me, and I would certainly not tolerate other Christians condemning them due to minor disagreements.

Shabir Ally is Islam's greatest debater. He is extremely intelligent. He's also kind, pleasant to be around, unoffensive, and honorable. He is a man of integrity. He is very much what I would want to be like if I were a Muslim apologist.

Nadir, on the other hand, is rude, obnoxious, disrespectful, arrogant, boastful, violent, and deceptive. He uses horribly foul language, insults Christians and Muslims alike, and tries to get the entire world to revolve around himself. He is one of the worst debaters in history, completely unable to focus on the topic at hand. Nadir obviously suffers from chronic envy and jealousy. He wants to bring everyone else down, so that his own status will be better by comparison. He is illogical, immoral, and has absolutely no personal integrity. He is, in short, the exact opposite of what I would want to be if I were a Muslim apologist.

I conclude with a piece of advice for Nadir. Nadir, if you're on the first floor of a building, and you're jealous because other people are on the top floor, the solution is not to tear down the building in an effort to bring them down to your level. Rather, the solution is to start climbing the stairs. Similarly, if the world is repulsed by your horrendous behavior, constant insults, and delusions of grandeur, and you're jealous of more respectable people, the solution is not to attack people who are obviously better than you. Instead, the solution is to reform your character and actions, and to learn something before you talk.

Nadir Ahmed: The Facts Are Pouring In

Believe it or not, many people aren't too fond of Nadir Ahmed. Indeed, Christians and Muslims are sending me emails loaded with information about Nadir, and there seems to be no end in sight. In this post, I'd like to share some new information that may help shed light on Nadir's character and beliefs.

First, a Muslim emailed me to confirm something Keith Truth said in the comments section of an earlier post. Nadir claims that Shabir Ally's son is blind because God cursed Shabir for believing in Swoon Theory. (This is interesting, since Nadir's friend Ehteshaam believes that Swoon Theory is the only reasonable view to take.) I find this incredibly offensive. I have a fully disabled child, and an Ahmadi Muslim named Naser Shams once told me that my child's disability is due to the curse of Allah. (Since the gene for this disability affects half of all male babies on my wife's side of the family, our friend Naser must think that God cursed dozens of babies to punish me for my unbelief.) So Nadir's absurd and ignorant attack against Shabir is all too familiar to me. Let me say that Shabir Ally is the greatest Muslim debater in the world, that he is one of the nicest men I have ever met, and that he is intellectually and morally superior to Nadir. To use the disability of Shabir's child as an opportunity to attack him seems almost too slimy, even for Nadir. I hope that readers will take this appalling and unwarranted attack into account when they consider whether Nadir Ahmed needs to be completely, utterly, totally exposed.

Second, let's take a brief look at Nadir's ex-wives (yes, plural) and his criminal record. Nadir has been married and divorced twice. I'll be sharing more information in future posts (pending communication with the victims of being married to Nadir). Nadir married his first wife, Fatima, in October of 2001, and they divorced in May of 2006. I haven't been able to confirm yet whether an illicit affair was involved in the separation, but I do know that Nadir was charged with Domestic Battery and Violating an Order of Protection against Fatima. He pleaded guilty to the latter and was found not guilty of the former. (Nadir faced other charges when he was younger, such as criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct, but we'll assume that he's reformed since then.)

Even more interesting, according to court documents, Nadir and Fatima were divorced on May 2, 2006 (having lived together until May 1, 2006). Yet Nadir married his second wife, Essraa, on June 1, 2006! I'll let Nadir fill in the details, but this seems awfully fast (less than a month between the divorce and the marriage to his new wife). But things get worse. Nadir and Essraa were divorced in July of 2006 (yes, less than two months after the marriage). I think we should refrain from judgment until Nadir has a chance to explain. I'll simply say that I can see why someone would look at this and wonder if Muta is involved.

The Sad, Lonely World of Nadir Ahmed

Nadir has been emailing me over the past few days (until I had to block him). He knows I'm doing a series of videos and articles on him, so he sent me his favorite picture of himself to use in my posts. (He calls this his "approved picture.")



I was surprised to see that Nadir's best picture of himself is so depressing, but then I realized how lonely Nadir must be. When a man insults everyone around him, compulsively lies, and tries to bully and manipulate people--well, let's just say that this isn't a recipe for lasting friendships.

I remember the last time I saw Nadir. We were in California for some debates. When we were done, Nadir tried to get everyone to hang out with him. No one, Christian or Muslim, wanted to spend so much as a moment with Nadir. He kept saying, "Come on, I'm wired, let's go out." But no one wanted anything to do with him. Everyone wanted to get as far away from him as possible, as quickly as possible. Then a few of us did go out, but not with Nadir.

What I found shocking was that Nadir didn't seem to understand why everyone was so repulsed by his behavior. Nadir insults people regularly; he calls people names; he insults not only his opponents, but their families; he accuses his opponents of being pedophiles; he spreads lies about people; he threatens his fellow Muslims with physical violence; he uses horribly offensive language; he accuses his fellow Muslim apologists of being homosexuals; he lies constantly; and he never stops praising himself. And yet, he just doesn't understand why people don't want to be around someone who behaves like this. It's as if Nadir can't escape the mentality of a nine-year-old, and he doesn't understand why other people see things differently.

On the one hand, I pity Nadir. He clearly has low self-esteem, and his tantrums and atrocious behavior seem like some kind of pathetic defense mechanism. Perhaps Nadir has compulsions that he cannot control, driving away all those around him. Indeed, we may wonder whether Nadir has other psychological problems. Anyone who starts rambling about sex with prostitutes in the middle of a debate on New Testament reliability can't be completely stable.

It seems, then, that something isn't right about Nadir, and that some of his behavior may not be his fault. When I think about this, I don't want to start a series on Nadir. It's just not nice to attack someone whose faculties aren't functioning properly. And yet, just when I think I can't go through with it, Nadir sends Mike Licona (a historical Jesus scholar and a close friend of mine) an unprovoked email, calling Mike a "dork." It's times like this that make me realize that psychological disorders are irrelevant here. After all, if a man had a deadly and contagious virus, he would be quarantined, whether the virus was his fault or not. Similarly, if a man is the most selfish, egomaniacal, insulting, arrogant, deceptive person I have ever met, he must be exposed, whether he's in his right mind or not.

Advice to a Young Muslim Apologist--Part One: Avoiding Nadir Ahmed

Our new friend Ehteshaam has decided to be an apologist and a debater. Since several of us on this blog made the same decision years ago, I think we should help Ehteshaam with some advice that may be helpful to him. In this post, I would like to share some thoughts about Nadir Ahmed.

In our recent debate, Ehteshaam recommended Nadir's website as a good source of information about Christianity and Islam. I am not aware of a single meaningful critique of Christianity on Nadir's site, and I've never seen a reasonable defense of Islam by Nadir. Thus, while I understand pointing people to Bassam Zawadi's website for information (Bassam is an excellent apologist), I have no clue why anyone would send people to Nadir's site. (The first time Nabeel visited www.examinethetruth.com, he called me and said he felt like he needed to take a bath afterwards.)

I can only assume that Ehteshaam isn't aware of Nadir's reputation among Christians and Muslims, so I will offer some information.

Nadir attacks any Muslim apologist who is more qualified than he is (and I can't think of a Muslim apologist less qualified than Nadir). For instance, Nadir refers to Shabir Ally (one of Islam's top debaters) as a "dummy." He also says that Shabir is "weak-minded," and that debating Shabir is like debating someone's grandmother!

Nadir is known for his violent tendencies as well. Indeed, Nadir even threatens his fellow Muslims! Consider the following email, in which Nadir threatens to kill Osama Abdallah, a Muslim apologist. Nadir also accuses Osama Abdallah of having a homosexual relationship with Sami Zaatari. (NOTE: I put stars over some words due to Nadir's foul language.)

Osama, you f***ing kaffir.. how dare you insult our Prophet(P) by saying he has a mental disease wallahi, if I ever meet you on the street.... youre done.... and it WILL happen. watch your back. and as for your gay lover Saami, the fact that you support this piece of s**t osama.. the same holds true for you. I have ways and means... I promise u. I have made a screen shot of your defamation of our Prophet(P), so you dont try to hide your kuffar. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed www.ExamineTheTruth.com

(For more on Nadir's violent character, see "Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya.")

I first met Nadir when we debated in 2006. As I documented here, Nadir deceptively got me to exchange criticisms with him prior to the debate (i.e. he gave me the criticisms he would use against Christianity, and I gave him the criticisms I would use against Islam). This was my first encounter with Taqiyya--the Muslim belief that it's morally acceptable to deceive people in order to defend Islam. When Nadir started debating, he used criticisms that were quite different from the ones he had sent me. (I've found it very difficult to trust Muslim apologists since then.)

Nadir's career as a debater should have officially ended after his crushing defeat at the hands of Sam Shamoun (one of the most one-sided debates in history, as the audience poll shows). Even Muslims were condemning Nadir's performance. In an act of complete desperation, Nadir even came on this blog under a false name and praised his own debate skills! (For more on Nadir's pitiful efforts to defend his poor performance, click here, here, and here.)

Nadir should have retired. Instead, he took a trip to James White's church and challenged James to a debate. When a Muslim comes to your church and challenges you, there isn't much choice. So James debated Nadir, and Nadir failed even more miserably than he did in his debate with Sam. Indeed, in the middle of the debate (on the reliability of the New Testament), Nadir started answering allegations that he has sex with prostitutes! Who thinks like this?

We will be examining Nadir's claims and character more closely in some posts that will follow. But it should be clear to Ehteshaam that associating himself with Nadir is disastrous. Christians regard Nadir as a deceptive, egomaniacal, violent, ignorant man who cares far more about himself than he does about Islam. Many Muslims share this view. Thus, when giving a conclusion, should a young Muslim apologist recommend the works of Nadir Ahmed?

It's one thing to be friends with Nadir. It's something else to say that he's a good apologist or that people should study his writings. Hence, my first piece of advice to Ehteshaam is this: Don't mention your association with Nadir Ahmed. It will only hurt your credibility.

For more on Nadir, visit Answering Islam's page here.

Daniel Scot vs. Nadir Ahmed: "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"

Nadir likes to post deceptive intros to his videos, and this debate with Daniel Scot is no exception. Nadir declares that Sam Shamoun agreed to debate him on Old Testament violence, and that Sam is too scared to do so. In reality, Sam ageed to debate two topics with Nadir: (1) Old Testament violence, and (2) the Prophethood of Muhammad. It turns out that Nadir refuses to defend Muhammad in a public debate with Sam, and Sam will not debate Old Testament violence until Nadir agrees to defend Muhammad. In other words, Sam Shamoun is the one who wants to debate, and Nadir Ahmed is the one backing down.

(On a different note, I would say that Nadir's embarrassing losses to James White and Sam Shamoun have ended his career, and that no one is under any obligation to debate Nadir. Even Muslims turned against him in both of those debates, and most Muslims will no longer attend a debate if Nadir is a participant.)

In the following debate, Nadir, like most other Muslim apologists, condemns his own prophet. In Sunan Abu Dawud 4434, Muhammad put his hand on a copy of the Torah and swore that it's the Word of God. Nadir condemns the Old Testament and, in the process, condemns the prophet who declared that the Old Testament is the Word of God. Apart from this, Nadir shows that he doesn't have even a basic understanding of Christian doctrine (e.g. Old Covenant vs. New Covenant), and this debate was about Christianity. As viewers have seen in my debates with Sami Zaatari and Adnan Rashid, there isn't a single conceivable situation in which Christians would be called to commit violence.

Understandably, no one, whether Christian or Muslim, wants to see Nadir on stage again. For more on Nadir, visit his page at AI.

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE

Nadir Ahmed: Taqiyya Incarnate

I've never made a huge deal out of this, but it seems our friend Nadir is still trying to sucker Christian debaters into exchanging arguments with him. So I've decided to publish the evidence. I'm sure that Muslims will have no objections to Nadir's actions. Christians, on the other hand, will have a different view. Here's the article:

"Nadir Ahmed: Taqiyya Incarnate"

And for those who would like to learn more about the "only Muslim debater in America," please see the following articles and debates:

Nadir Ahmed vs. Sam Shamoun: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

Nadir Ahmed vs. James White: "Can We Trust the New Testament?"

"Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya"

"Nadir Ahmed Exposed!"

"Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally"

Answering Islam's Page on Nadir Ahmed

Answering Christianity's Page on Nadir Ahmed

Uthman: Corrupter of Muhammad's Message and the True Founder of Islam

It's quite common for Muslim apologists to be inconsistent in their methodology. For instance, a Muslim will point to the Bible and say, "Ahhhh! You have textual variants! This is conclusive proof that your book has been corrupted!" Then, when Christians show that there are textual variants in the Qur'an, suddenly textual variants aren't important. Muslims will point to the Gospels and say, "Ha! Mark was written more than two decades after the life of Jesus! How can you trust such a late book?" Then these same Muslims will quote Sahih al-Bukhari as a trustworthy source on the life of Muhammad--despite the fact that it was written more than two centuries after Muhammad's life.

Muslims are especially inconsistent in their conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are meant to rule out evidence, so that the facts no longer count. For example, let's say that I'm a paranoid schizophrenic. "Everyone is conspiring against me," I cry. How could anyone ever prove me wrong? "David," you say, "I promise you that we're not conspiring against you. No one's plotting behind your back." This is meant to be evidence against my position, and yet I reply, "Ha! That's exactly what I would expect you to say! If you're plotting against me, of course you're going to deny it! Now I know that everyone is conspiring against me!"

Muslims apply conspiracy theories in numerous ways, e.g. "There was a conspiracy at the Council of Nicaea! They wrote the Gospels themselves!" But I want to focus on one particular conspiracy theory--the theory that Paul invented Christianity. In his debate with James White, Nadir Ahmed used this theory to rule out all the relevant evidence. Nadir claimed, without offering anything even remotely resembling a careful argument, that Paul had corrupted Jesus' message. Since the writings of the New Testament come after Paul, none of them can be used as evidence concerning Jesus' teachings. Moreover, since even the early church fathers were writing after Paul, their views don't count either.

Notice the difference between this conspiracy theory and a serious argument against Christianity. A serious argument would be based on the first century evidence. Nadir's conspiracy theory is meant to rule out everything that would normally count as evidence (and James pointed this out).

But does Nadir apply this theory consistently? That is, would Islam be able to deal with a similar attack? Let's find out.

I claim that Muhammad was a Christian. He believed in Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. The vast majority of "Christians" in Arabia before the time of Muhammad were heretics. Hence, Muhammad came to restore true belief in Jesus Christ. He spent his entire life preaching the Gospel and turning people to faith in Jesus Christ. Many pagans were converted to Christianity under the powerful preaching of Muhammad and his disciples Abu Bakr and Umar. Muhammad gave his followers the Qur'an, which, in its original form, was simply an Arabic translation of the New Testament.

But there was an evil pagan named Uthman, who hated Christianity, didn't know Muhammad, and worshiped Allah, one of the many gods of Arabia. In order to destroy the work of Muhammad, Uthman pretended to be a faithful Christian. His deception was so convincing that he eventually rose to a position of leadership in the Christian community. Once he was in charge, Uthman asked all of the Christians in Arabia for their copies of the Qur'an (i.e. their copies of the Arabic New Testament). Uthman then rewrote the entire Qur'an, turning it into a book which denies the core teachings of Christianity. He took all copies of the true Qur'an and burned them, and he used his power to silence his enemies.

Thus, the Islam of today is not the religion that Muhammad preached. Muhammad preached submission to Jesus Christ. Uthman corrupted this message by claiming that Allah is the only true God and that Jesus was a mere prophet of Allah. He did this in order to degrade Jesus and to keep people from believing in Christianity, the religion of Muhammad.

Now for the fun part. How can Muslims refute my theory? They can't appeal to the Qur'an, since all copies of the Qur'an were written after Uthman corrupted them. But Muslims can't appeal to the Hadith, Sira literature, or commentaries either, since all of these were written after the time of Uthman. Muslims can't even say that Uthman was one of the companions, since I'm claiming that Uthman simply rewrote history to help his position. Isnad criticism is irrelevant, since later Isnad critics were under the influence of Uthman's false teachings.

I conclude that Muhammad preached Christianity and that Uthman was the true founder of what is now called "Islam."

My question to my Muslim friends is this: Do you really want to take the route of conspiracy theories?

Nadir Ahmed vs. James White: "Can We Trust What the New Testament Tells Us about Jesus and the Gospel?"

If you thought that Nadir Ahmed's career ended after his humiliating defeat at the hands of Sam Shamoun, you're wrong. Nadir, in an effort to redeem himself, travelled to Phoenix, entered James White's church, and challenged him to a debate. While James didn't want to debate someone with absolutely no credentials, no standing in the Muslim community, and no respect from either Christians or Muslims, Nadir had crossed the line. Hence, one of Christianity's most experienced apologists agreed to debate one of Islam's most embarrassing characters. However, even those who know about Nadir couldn't have predicted how low he would sink in this debate. By the time the Q&A period rolled around, Nadir's fellow Muslims couldn't contain their embarrassment.



Interestingly, Nadir has defended his atrocious behavior here. It seems that sticking to a topic, respecting one's audience, not making a fool of oneself, etc., are Western values, which, according to Nadir, have no place in Islam.

(Note: For those who want to know what Nadir is talking about when he says that he heard from someone that Nabeel had accused him of practicing Muta, I happen to know where this misunderstanding came from. A couple of years ago, Nadir somehow managed to convince Nabeel's parents that he is a respected scholar of Islam. Nabeel, however, knew the truth: that Nadir knows virtually nothing about Islam and that some of his fellow Muslims think he is insane. In order to show his mother that Nadir is not respected, Nabeel pointed to an article on the Answering Christianity website which said that Nadir claims that sex with animals is acceptable in Islam. The only point was to show that people in the Muslim community have no respect for Nadir. Somehow, over the following months, Nabeel's mother confused the issue of sex with animals with the problem of Muta--Muhammad's [later retracted] claim that prostitution is acceptable, provided the men marry the women for the duration of their sexual activities. Nabeel's mom conveyed this misunderstanding to Nadir, who, instead of talking to Nabeel about the issue, chose instead to bring it up in the middle of his first debate with a Christian scholar--a debate on the reliability of the New Testament. Such behavior is, of course, utterly unacceptable, and Muslims are almost universally turning their backs on Nadir. Others are wondering why Nadir gets so emotional when the Muta issue is raised. After all, Nadir seems pleased when people accuse him of being demon possessed or mentally unstable. He wears such attacks as a badge of honor. Yet when someone is misunderstood as accusing him of practicing Muta, Nadir goes berserk. As Hamlet's mother would say, "The [man] doth protest too much, methinks." Anyway, if you thought that two humiliating defeats would finally convince Nadir that he needs to stop embarrassing himself and his religion, you're wrong again. Nadir is once again trying to make a comeback. He'll be doing two debates with Pastor Daniel Scot in September. Oh boy . . .)

The Easter Debates: Christianity vs. Islam

Anyone near the Tidewater, Virginia area might be interested in the following debate series:



Friday, March 21st
7:00 - James White vs. Nadir Ahmed
"Can We Trust What the New Testament Says about Jesus and the Gospel?"
Old Dominion University, MGB 102

Saturday, March 22nd
2:30 - David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari
"Was Muhammad a Prophet of God?"
Old Dominion University, MGB 102

7:00 - Shadid Lewis vs. Nabeel Qureshi
"The Case for Islam versus The Case for Christianity: Why We Chose to Leave and Believe"
Old Dominion University, MGB 102

Sunday, March 23rd
2:30 - David Wood vs. Shadid Lewis
"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
Central Baptist Church in Ghent

6:00 - Nabeel Qureshi vs. Sami Zaatari
"Who Was Jesus?"
Central Baptist Church in Ghent

For more info, visit the Acts 17 website.

Nadir Ahmed's Amazing Debate Format

I've been busy arranging a debate between James White and Nadir Ahmed, which is no easy task when Nadir's involved. Nadir originally demanded that James must not be allowed to point out inconsistencies during the debate. James refused (understandably), and Nadir finally agreed that James has the right to be logical.

But Nadir wasn't finished. James suggested a very reasonable debate format, but Nadir suggested one major modification: He demanded the right to be both the first speaker and the last speaker! His reasoning was as follows. Since he has agreed to speak first, he is at a disadvantage, since James will be able to respond to him. Therefore, to compensate for this disadvantage, he should be given the right to speak last.

Even more amazing is that James agreed to the format! Whatever one can say about this debate before it happens, one thing is clear. Nadir is doing everything he can to gain an unfair advantage prior to the debate, while James is so fearless that he's letting Nadir have an advantage. (Keep this in mind when you consider Nadir's complaints about his debate with Sam Shamoun, where his chief complaint was that the debate format was unfair--despite the fact that the rules were completely fair.)

One last point for Nadir's future debate opponents. Nadir has here declared that whoever speaks first should also be given the right to speak last. Keep this in mind when arranging a debate with Nadir. If you go first, you also get to go last. Nuff said?

Nadir Ahmed Declares: Shabir Ally Is a "Dummy"!!!

In a recent post, I described Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally. Nadir understands that Shabir is one of the most respected Muslim debaters in the world. Yet Nadir wants to be Islam's greatest debater. So how does he go about this? Does he study carefully, earning the respect of Christians and Muslims alike? No. Nadir attacks his fellow Muslims, hoping that this will help him rise to fame. As I showed in the former article, Nadir has said that Shabir Ally is weak-minded, and that debating Shabir Ally is like debating someone's grandma!

Yet Nadir isn't letting up in his war against Shabir. A couple of hours ago, Nadir called in to James White's radio program and called Shabir a "dummy"! Would anyone listening to Shabir Ally claim that he is a dummy? (Click here to listen to the show.)

This program was quite informative, as it evolved into a brief, informal debate on the textual integrity of the Qur'an. It's amazing to see Nadir try to reinterpret clear passages from Al-Bukhari!

The Debate Results Are in! Sam Shamoun Wins over Nadir Ahmed by a Landslide!

Prior to Sam’s debate with Nadir—“Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”—audience members were given a questionnaire. After the debate, more than fifty attendees answered the questions.

Interestingly, the Muslims at the debate were so upset by Nadir’s performance that all but one refused to answer questions concerning who won the debate! Christians, on the other hand, were quite eager to offer an assessment.

Below, I have listed the questions attendees were asked about the debate, along with the average scores of Sam and Nadir. The results weren’t even close!

On a scale from 1 to 10 (1 being the least and 10 the greatest):

How convincing was Nadir Ahmed in presenting that Islam is a Religion of Peace? Nadir scored a 2.6 on a scale from 1 to 10. One person declined to answer this question.

How convincing was Sam Shamoun that Islam is a Religion of Terrorism? Sam scored an 8.7 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How would you rate Nadir Ahmed’s debate skills? Nadir scored a 3.7 on a scale from 1 to 10. One person declined to respond.

How would you rate Sam Shamoun’s debate skills? Sam scored a 9.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How faithful was Nadir Ahmed to staying on the topic, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Nadir scored a 3.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

How faithful was Sam Shamoun to staying on the topic, Is Islam a Religion of Peace? Sam scored a 9.3 on a scale from 1 to 10.

Of course, not even these devastating results will change Nadir’s absurd proclamation that he won the debate. The Muslims at the debate were completely disappointed; the Christians shouted in triumph. Yet Nadir has tried everything imaginable to change the outcome of the debate. He has tried to alter the topic (both during the debate, when he tried to divert the issue to Christianity, and after the debate, when he claimed that the real topic of the debate was the views of Pastor George Saieg); he has claimed that the terms of the debate were unfair; he has even come on this site under a false name and praised himself for his performance!

Yet those of us who know Nadir Ahmed have come to expect this sort of thing. Nadir claims to be the only true Muslim debater in America, despite the fact that he has no credentials, insults and threatens his opponents (sometimes calling them child molesters or insulting their families), attacks his fellow Muslims, and, in general, acts like a complete child. Shouldn’t we expect such a person to claim victory even when he is utterly defeated?

Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally

Nadir Ahmed has challenged practically every Christian apologist in the country to debate him. The reactions from Christian apologists are nearly always the same. They point out that Nadir has no credentials, that he insults his opponents (even their families!), that his arguments are awful, that he has no scholarly background, that he accuses his opponents of being pedophiles, and that even Muslims generally don’t know who he is. Christian apologists also typically say that they would rather debate reputable Muslim apologists such as Shabir Ally, Jamal Badawi, and Zakir Naik.

Nadir’s response here is enlightening. He boldly proclaims that he is the only true Muslim debater in America, and that anyone who refuses to debate him is running from him. Sadly, in his efforts to rise to fame, Nadir often resorts to insulting his fellow Muslim apologists—even Shabir Ally! Even more absurd is that Nadir claims that Muslims prefer him over Shabir Ally!

For instance, Nadir recently went to James White’s church to challenge him to a debate. When Shabir Ally came up in the conversation, Nadir claimed that Muslims would rather see him debate than Shabir. James said that the Muslims of Shabir’s Islamic Information and Dawah Center might disagree with this; however, Nadir claimed that even the Muslims of Shabir’s Dawah Center are more interested in seeing Nadir Ahmed! (James also said that Nadir spent a great deal of time in their discussion attacking Shabir Ally. Click here to listen to James White’s discussion of this incident with Nadir.)

But it gets worse. I have an email in which Nadir claims that Shabir is weak-minded, and that Muslims do not support him. Nadir said:

And one more point which needs to be made clear - I am the ONLY Muslim apologist in America. Besides me there is none else. Therefore, since I am the only Muslim apologist, then if one of these learned men in the Bible refuse to debate me, then that raises a lot of questions. I am the only Muslim in America who has presented an [sic] compelling case that Islam is true based on the Archaelogical [sic], prophetic and scientfic [sic] evidence, and am prepared to debate and defend my premise. p.s. people like Shabir Ally (from Canada) are not Muslim apologists! they dont [sic] debate Islam. They only want to debate the Bible and show the errors in the book. But a Muslim apologist is one who's [sic] main focus is to debate Islam - debates the evidence for Islam, debates the case for the prophethood of Muhammed(P)... etc. Btw, Muslims do not support Shabir Ally, only Christians do, because he is weak minded.

I find it rather amazing that the only Muslim apologist in America can’t spell “archaeological” or “scientific.”

But Nadir didn’t leave it at that. After a recent debate between Nabeel Qureshi and Sami Zaatari, Nadir claimed that Shabir is a child, and that debating Shabir is like debating a grandmother! (Click here to listen to the discussion.) According to Nadir:

Our perception is that you guys are afraid to debate Examinethetruth.com, and therefore you run after people like Shabir Ally, people—kids, you know, like people’s grandma, and you try to debate them.

Why would Nadir say these things about one of the greatest Muslim apologists of our time? My personal view is that Nadir doesn’t really care about Islam. Instead, he cares about getting attention for himself. He wants the spotlight, and if Muslims get in the way, Nadir will try to trample on them.

So why do Christians prefer to debate Shabir Ally? Shabir is far more intelligent than Nadir. Shabir is a much better speaker. He’s immensely more knowledgeable. He acts like an adult, not like a child. Shabir outstrips Nadir in every relevant way.

How, then, does Nadir get any attention at all? Well, some people enjoy watching loud-mouth, arrogant debaters. Hence, Nadir does have some fans. But this hardly justifies Nadir’s treatment of his fellow Muslims.

Since Nadir has made some very specific claims about Shabir, about the members of his Dawah Center, and about Muslims in general, I think it’s time for an investigation. To begin, I will contact the Dawah Center to see whether they really support Nadir over Shabir. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?

Nadir Ahmed’s First Positive “Review”: Did This Guy Even Watch the Debate???

Nadir Ahmed has been contacting numerous people, trying to get some positive reviews of his debate with Sam Shamoun. Apparenly, someone finally wrote a review that he likes. The amazing thing is that the reviewer, Kaiwaig, either didn’t watch the debate, or didn’t pay attention at all!

Kaiwaig talks about the debate itself very little. After vaguely mentioning the debate, he spends most of his time trying to prove that Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately, Kaiwaig obviously hasn’t studied the history of Islam—especially early Muslim commentaries and the Sira literature. Kaiwaig went so far as to say that the “Muslim method” is to distribute information about Islam and to let people decide for themselves! Has he read the Qur’an? Did he consider the verses presented by Sam in the debate? Has he read Ibn Ishaq, or Ibn Sad, or Al-Tabari? Obviously not.

But we can go further. Kaiwaig points to the “no compulsion in religion” verse in the Qur’an (2:256), which was addressed by Sam in the debate. Amazingly, Kaiwaig tells his viewers that Sam’s response to this verse was to point to modern day Muslims as proof that Islam is a religion of violence! Yet anyone who actually watched the debate knows that Sam did no such thing. In fact, Sam specifically said (over and over again) that he would not point to modern acts of violence by Muslims to defend his case. How could anyone who watched the debate miss this???

Sam’s answer was clear. The peaceful, tolerant passages, delivered by Muhammad when he was outnumbered in Mecca, were later abrogated when Islam took control. Yet Kaiwaig’s viewers will never know Sam’s real answer, since practically everything he said about Sam’s position was wrong. We can only conclude that Kaiwaig never even watched the debate, and that he got his information from skimming some of Nadir’s articles.

What’s even more interesting is that Nadir lists this as the first review of his debate! For the record, if I were to ask someone to post a review of my debate, and when they gave me the review it was obvious that they hadn’t even watched the debate, I would ask them to take back their review until they were ready to be more accurate. But not Nadir!

To see whether I am correct or not, please watch Kaiwaig’s review after watching the debate. This is hilarious!

Nadir Ahmed on “Dirty Tricks”: Part Two—the Tu Quoque Fallacy

Nadir Ahmed has accused Christians of forcing him to accept unfair debate terms in his recent debate with Sam Shamoun. As I showed here, the debate terms were entirely fair and reasonable, which means that Nadir was simply trying to justify his embarrassing performance by falsely accusing Christians of deception.

As I will show in this post, it was Nadir, not Sam, who resorted to “Dirty Tricks” (as Nadir calls them).

Prior to his debate with Sam Shamoun ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"), Nadir Ahmed agreed that he would not go off-topic by criticizing the Bible. However, when the debate started, he began attacking the Bible very quickly. Soon, the Bible became Nadir’s primary focus—in a debate about Islam!

It was obvious to everyone that Nadir was simply trying to draw attention away from Islam and to put Christians on the defensive. Yet if this was his goal, one wonders why he agreed to debate a Muslim topic in the first place.

Nadir’s tactic was a perfect example of the Tu Quoque fallacy. The Tu Quoque fallacy occurs when instead of answering an objection, a person points his finger back at his questioner and says, “Well, you’ve got problems too!”

This fallacy is quite common among Muslims. When a person asks a Muslim, “Aren’t you shocked by all the innocents killed in the name of Allah,” it is quite common for the Muslim to reply, “What about all of the innocents killed by the West?” As if this answers the question!

To give another example, suppose I were to tell you a vicious lie, and you realized that I had lied to you. “David, you just lied to me,” you respond. “Now explain yourself!” “Well,” I reply, “You’ve lied too.” As if this makes it okay for me to lie!

And that’s why this approach is fallacious. The question of whether you have lied is irrelevant to the question of whether I have lied. Whether innocents have been killed by the West is irrelevant to whether Muslims should be killing innocents.

Thus, in a debate titled “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” it makes no sense for the Muslim debater to argue that Christianity is a religion of violence. Indeed, if the evidence proved conclusively that Christianity is the most violent, bloody religion in history (silly, isn’t it!), this would not help us answer the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Hence, it was disturbing to see Nadir place so much emphasis on Christianity and the Bible in his debate about Islam. Indeed, on his webpage devoted to the debate, Nadir claims that there were five “Key Topics” of the debate: (1) “Islam condemns terrorism,” (2) “Bible accepts terrorism,” (3) “Challenge to Christianity,” (4) “The 4 arguments of why Islam is a religion of peace,” and (5) “Why Bible terror is relevant for this debate.”

Notice that, in Nadir’s mind, three out of five “Key Topics” in his debate about Islam revolve around Christianity!

However, Nadir has made an interesting (although horribly flawed) case for why the Bible was relevant in his debate with Sam. Nadir argues that since Muhammad came to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity (!!!), Islam must be a religion of peace.

Of course, it is obvious to every informed viewer that Muhammad didn’t come to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity (!!!), since Christianity doesn’t teach genocide and terrorism. In Christianity, we are commanded to love our enemies, to pray for those who persecute us, to love our neighbors as ourselves, and to never return evil for evil (ever heard of the “New Covenant?”). Hence, a person who looks at all of this and says, “Christianity teaches violence and bloodshed” is obviously biased against the truth.

It is also ridiculous to claim that Muhammad came to confront the genocide and terrorism of Christianity. When did Muhammad claim this? I challenge Nadir to show us that Muhammad claimed that this was his purpose. If Nadir cannot produce such proof, he is guilty of ascribing false motives to his prophet.

But let’s lay such issues aside and examine Nadir’s claim on logical grounds. The fact remains: Even if Christianity were the most violent religion on earth, this would have nothing to do with whether Islam is a religion of peace (even if it were true that Muhammad came to confront Christian violence).

To see why this is so, think about Nadir’s argument, which goes something like this: “Christianity teaches genocide. But Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to commit genocide. Thus, Muhammad was coming to confront Christian genocide. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.”

To see why this is completely flawed, let us consider two analogies. Suppose the debate topic had been “Was Muhammad Polygamous?” In the debate, Sam would have provided numerous sources, proving that Muhammad had at least nine wives at one time. Sam would have concluded, “Thus, Muhammad was polygamous.” Nadir would have argued differently. He would have argued thus: “In the Bible, Solomon is said to have had 700 wives! But Muhammad came to confront this Christian [!!!] polygamy! Muhammad made it very clear that no one can marry this many wives. Therefore, Muhammad was monogamous!”

The fallacy here should be obvious. Even if Solomon had far more wives than Muhammad, this wouldn’t mean that Muhammad was monogamous. And even if Muhammad had come to confront this “Christian” (!!!) polygamy, this still would have nothing to do with whether Muhammad was polygamous or not. Hence, Solomon and the Bible would be entirely irrelevant to such a debate!

Consider another analogy. Suppose there were two religions: Religion X and Religion Y. Religion X teaches its followers that it is right to violently torture all non-members as much as possible. Religion Y comes along and agrees that it is right to torture non-members, but with one exception. According to Religion Y, “It is wrong to torture old ladies, even if they are not members of our religion.” What would be the difference between these two religions? One tortures all non-members, while the other tortures all non-members except old ladies.

Now suppose there were a debate titled, “Is Religion Y a Religion of Peace?” If he gets his logical training from Nadir Ahmed, the defender of Religion Y would argue: “We don’t torture old ladies. Our prophet came to confront the practice of old lady torturing! Thus, Religion Y is a religion of peace!”

But would this have anything to do with whether Religion Y is a religion of peace? Nothing whatsoever! Indeed, it would be impossible for any rational person to look at a religion that advocates torturing all non-members except old ladies and conclude that it is a religion of peace.

The point here is that even if Religion Y were more peaceful (comparatively) than Religion X, this would not mean that Religion Y is peaceful. Similarly, even if Islam were more peaceful than Christianity (doesn’t that just sound silly!), this would not make Islam a religion of peace.

Therefore, Christianity was entirely irrelevant to the debate between Sam and Nadir. They both agreed to debate whether Islam is a religion of peace. Christianity, Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, atheism, etc., had absolutely nothing to do with the debate. The fact that Nadir kept pointing his finger at Christianity, then, was an admission that he could not defend his religion without resorting to fallacious debate tricks. And the fact that, after the debate, he has tried so desperately to defend his fallacious reasoning shows that he will do anything to justify his weak, flawed arguments.