Debate: Is the Qur'an a Book of Peace? (Shabir Ally vs. David Wood)

Many Muslims insist that the Qur'an promotes peace and religious tolerance, and they quote verses of the Qur'an to justify their position. However, other Muslims claim that the Qur'an calls for the violent subjugation of unbelievers, and they also quote verses of the Qur'an to justify their position. Who's right? Can we reconcile the Qur'an's peaceful commands with its violent commands?

In this fast-paced debate, Shabir Ally argues that the Qur'an is a book of peace, while David Wood argues that it isn't.

Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?

Whenever we attempt to discuss terrorist attacks committed in accordance with the commands of the Qur'an and Hadith, someone is sure to say, "Well, what about the Crusades?" But this response is only relevant if violence committed in the name of Christianity is actually commanded by Christianity. Are Christians ever commanded to commit violence?

Christopher Hitchens vs. Tariq Ramadan: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Christopher Hitchens isn't the sharpest atheist in the world, but he's one of the most rhetorically talented (and angriest). Hence, he can be defeated by a capable opponent when the evidence is stacked against him, for rhetoric isn't everything. (If you get a chance, purchase the DVD of his debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Even atheists acknowledge Hitchens's defeat!)

What happens when Hitchens has all of the evidence on his side? Find out in this debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace. (For another atheist vs. Muslim debate on the same topic, click here.)

*****UPDATE***** Unfortunately, the debate has been removed from YouTube. This is all that's left:

Zeba Khan and Maajid Nawaz vs. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Douglas Murray: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

This was an excellent debate. A lot of minds were changed about Islam at NYU. It's amazing what can happen when the facts are laid out.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush characterized Islam as a religion of peace. Many people agree with that belief, saying the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives.

But others counter that the roots of Islam include violent leaders, teachings and scripture.

A team of experts argued both sides of the motion "Islam Is a Religion of Peace" in a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate. Two argued in favor and two against.

Before the Oxford-style debate at New York University's Skirball Center for the Performing Arts, the audience voted 41 percent in favor of the motion and 25 percent against. Thirty-four percent were undecided. After the debate, however, 55 percent disagreed that "Islam Is a Religion of Peace," 36 percent supported the motion and 9 percent were still unsure.

John Donvan, correspondent for ABC News' Nightline, moderated the Oct. 6 debate. Source

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE


PART FOUR


PART FIVE


PART SIX


PART SEVEN


FOR THE MOTION

Maajid Nawaz is director of the Quilliam Foundation. Formerly, Nawaz served in the U.K. national leadership for the Islamist party Hizb ut-Tahrir and was involved in HT for almost 14 years. He was a founding member of HT in Denmark and Pakistan. He eventually served four years in an Egyptian prison and was adopted by Amnesty International as a "prisoner of conscience." In prison, Maajid gradually began changing his views until he finally renounced the Islamist ideology for traditional Islam and inclusive politics. He now engages in counter-Islamist thought-generating, writing and debating.

Zeba Khan is a writer and advocate for Muslim-American civic engagement. Born and raised in Ohio by devout Muslim parents, she attended Hebrew school for nine years while actively participating in her local Muslim community. In 2008, she launched Muslim-Americans for Obama, an online network to mobilize Muslim-American voters in support of the Obama presidential campaign. Since then, she continues to work on issues of Muslim-American civic engagement and was recognized for her work by the American Society for Muslim Advancement as a 2009 Muslim Leader of Tomorrow.

AGAINST THE MOTION

Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament for three years. She has since become an active critic of fundamentalist Islam, an advocate for women's rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. She has also become a target of death threats by Islamic extremists. Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The Caged Virgin (2006), Infidel (2007) and Nomad (2010). She is the founder of the AHA Foundation, whose mission is to defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam and tribal custom.

Douglas Murray is a best-selling author and award-winning journalist. He is also founder and director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a nonpartisan think-tank in Westminster, London, that focuses on radicalization and has published work on both Islamist and far-right extremism. Murray is a columnist for Standpoint magazine and writes for many other publications. In 2005, he published the critically acclaimed Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, which Christopher Hitchens praised as "a very cool but devastating analysis." He is a co-author of the NATO strategy report, "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership."

Thousands of Muslims Shout "Death to America" During Their Peaceful Hajj

The attack by Major Nidal Malik Hasan is confusing to Western media because Islam is so incredibly peaceful. As everyone knows, most Muslims love freedom, America, and apple pie. Isn't it strange, then, that Muslims had nothing to do during the Hajj but shout "Death to America"? Actually, they did have something else to do. They also shouted "America is the enemy of Allah," "Israel is the enemy of Allah," and "Death to Israel." Notice in the video that these chants rank alongside the Shahadah in importance. But shouldn't these dedicated Muslims realize from reading the Qur'an that Islam condemns violence and killing? Where's CNN's Arsalan Iftikhar when we need him to distort the Qur'an to make it sound peaceful? Oh, he's busing convincing non-Muslims that Islam is peaceful. He has no time to convince his fellow Muslims.

Does Qur'an 2:256 Show That Islam Is a Religion of Peace?

Qur'an 2:256—"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing."

(Note: Surah 2 was the first Surah revealed after the Muslims migrated to Medina.)

So many abrogated verses, so little time to convince Westerners that these verses are still relevant to Islam!

Qur'an 2:106—“Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?”

Qur'an 16:101—“And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.”

Qur’an 9:29—"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

(Note: Sura 9 was one of the last two Surahs revealed, and therefore abrogates any Qur'anic teachings that conflict with it.)

"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" Abdullah Andalusi and Yahya Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood

OPENING STATEMENTS


REBUTTALS


CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS

Shadid Lewis vs. David Wood: "Peace and Violence in Christianity and Islam"

Here it is!

NOTE: In between Shadid's first rebuttal and David's first rebuttal, a Muslim professor stood up and asked to speak because he had to leave. He then provided some extensive commentary. This will explain David's response in his first rebuttal.


Opening Statements



Rebuttals and Conclusions

Adnan Rashid vs. David Wood: "Peace and Violence In Christianity and Islam"

It was a pleasure working with Adnan Rashid (and the other Muslim apologists in the UK). He was very kind and pleasant, as were nearly all the Muslims I met in London. I look forward to many more debates on the other side of the Atlantic.

While watching this debate, we would do well to ask ourselves, “How many ways does Adnan condemn his own religion (in his desperate effort to condemn mine)?” Let me count the ways.

(1) Adnan condemns the Old Testament, which (a) he used as evidence for Islam in his opening statement, and (b) his own prophet declared to be the Word of God (in both the Qur’an and the Hadith). Thus, since Muhammad approved of such a book, he must not be a prophet.

(2) Adnan declares that the true God would never kill a child; yet, according to the Qur’an, God destroyed Sodom with fire and flooded the world in the time of Noah (and some children were presumably present). Since the true God would never do this, the God of the Qur'an cannot be the true God.

(3) Adnan declares that the true God would never order a human being to kill a child, despite the fact that one of Allah’s “servants” does just that in Surah 18. Once again, the God of the Qur'an cannot be the true God.

(4) Adnan condemns me for saying that I would kill if, contrary to what God has actually commanded me, He had instead commanded me to kill. In doing so, Adnan condemns the prophet Abraham, who was willing to kill his own son at God’s command. If we agree with Adnan, we would have to say that any book that praises Abraham's (wicked) behavior cannot come from God. Thus, the Qur'an cannot be the Word of God.

We can add other inconsistencies to this list. For instance, Adnan accuses me of only pointing to the negative aspects of Islam, and he then proceeds to degrade Christianity in every possible way. Adnan says that Christianity is violent because Catholics and Protestants once fought (despite the fact that they did so in violation of Christ's teachings), yet it never occurs to Adnan to apply his reasoning to Sunnis and Shias. Adnan points to a handful of Christian thinkers down through the ages who have advocated some form of violence, and he holds that this shows that Christianity is violent (despite the fact that these thinkers are ignoring Christ's teachings). Yet I could easily give him a massive list of Muslim scholars who advocate violence (and who do so in complete harmony with the Qur'an). Adnan points to violent acts committed in the name of Christianity as if this proves that Christianity is violent (despite the fact that such acts are committed in strict violation of Christ's teachings), yet he would never allow me to point to acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam as proof that Islam is violent (and I wouldn't do this anyway).

As James White often says, “I’m still waiting for the consistent Muslim” (i.e. the Muslim who applies the same criticisms to Islam that he applies to Christianity).

Inconsistencies aside, this debate teaches us four things. First, Islam’s sources command Muslims to fight anyone who (a) doesn’t accept Islam, or (b) refuses to pay the Jizya in complete humiliation. Second, Christianity’s source commands Christians, repeatedly, to live in peace with everyone. Third, no matter how many times I use the same material, Muslims still can’t offer a good response. Fourth, when Muslims get nervous, they cheer more (notice how many times the Muslims burst into applause for no reason whatsoever).

ADNAN'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS


Q&A/CONCLUSIONS


For more on this issue, see Sam Shamoun's debate with Nadir Ahmed ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", and my debates with Sami Zaatari ("Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" and "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?")

David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari: "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"

In our debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, Sami had to radically reinterpret the Qur'an and the Hadith, cling to an abrogated verse, reject the claims of Abu Bakr, throw out the interpretations of Ibn Kathir and al-Qurtubi, and call Aisha and Ali "bad Muslims." In the following debate on whether Christianity is a religion of peace, Sami can't show a single situation where Christians would be called to violence. Yet he argues that Christianity is a religion of violence because God judged people in the past and will judge people in the future!!! (Notice the inconsistency, since Sami would never apply this reasoning to Islam.)

DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


SAMI'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS

Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

This is the first of two debates Sami and I just had in California. (The debates were professionally recorded, but we won't have that footage for a few weeks. This is the footage from my camcorder.)

Here's my assessment. If we go to the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira literature, and the Commentaries, and we let the texts speak for themselves, the evidence is clear: Muslims are called to violence (in more ways than one).

There is a way out, however. Muslims can throw out all of the sources they are permitted to throw out, and they can reinterpret all of the sources they can't throw out. That is, they can convince themselves that Islam is peaceful by doing violence to their sources. There is a tremendous price to pay for this tactic, however. Muslims must reject their earliest historical sources, declare numerous ahadith "weak," ignore the views of their best commentators, and pretend that peaceful verses weren't abrogated by Surah 9.

I suspect that liberal Muslims will be upset with me for accurately representing Islam. I also suspect that devout Muslims will be upset with Sami for misrepresenting their religion and their scholars (as well as for saying that Aisha and Ali were "bad Muslims," and that Umar needed to be rebuked). See below for many of the verses we discussed and for additional commentary.

SAMI'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS


I. VIOLENCE TOWARDS UNBELIEVERS

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Al-Tabari, Volume 10, p. 55—Abu Bakr to the Apostates: . . . “Verily God, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad with His truth to His creation as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner and as one calling [others] to God, with His permission, and as a light-bringing lamp, so that he might warn [all] who live, and so that the saying against the unbelievers might be fulfilled. So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2795—Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s cause).”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Ibn Kathir, Volume 4, 405—This honorable Ayah [9:29] was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination.

Sami responded by arguing that, according to Islam, "there is no compulsion in religion" (despite the fact that Islam's greatest scholars hold either that Surah 2:256 was abrogated or that it only applies to "People of the Book" who submit and pay the Jizya tax).

II. VIOLENCE TOWARDS APOSTATES

Sahih al-Bukhari 6878—Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and that I am the Messenger of Allah, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) Life for life; (2) a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and (3) the one who turns renegade from Islam (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6921—Ibn Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, “A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah’s Messenger [said], “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Sami responded to these passages by claiming (without any actual evidence) that apostates were only to be killed in Muhammad's time, because they were spies.

III. VIOLENCE TOWARDS CRITICS

Sunan Abu Dawud 4348—Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4349— Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Sami pointed out that the Muslim sources only report a few instances of critics being killed; hence, Muslims aren't supposed to kill critics. (I'm not sure how this follows.)

IV. VIOLENCE TOWARDS WOMEN

Sunan Abu Dawud 2141—Iyas b. Abd Allah b. Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5825—Narrated Ikrima: Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.” Allah's messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 1986—Ash’ath b. Qais is reported to have said, “One night Umar arranged a feast. When it was midnight, he got up and went towards his wife to beat her. I separated them both. When he went to bed, he said to me, ‘O Ash’ath, preserve from me a thing that I heard from Allah’s messenger. (These things are): A man will not be taken to task for beating his wife (for valid reasons) and do not sleep without observing witr prayer.’ I forgot the third (exhortation).”

Sahih Muslim 2127—[Aisha said:] When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?

Sahih al-Bukhari 6845—Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5204—Narrated Abdullah bin Zam’a: “The prophet said, ‘None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.’”

Sunan Abu Dawud 2142—Umar b. al-Khattab reported the Prophet as saying: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

According to Sami, women were supposed to be beaten with a stick so small that it couldn't actually hurt them. I'm not sure how he can square this claim with the above passages. If a woman doesn't respond to admonition or bed arrest, I don't see how tapping her with a twig is going to change her mind. However, Sami did point out that Muslims who beat women were "not the best of Muslims." But since Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Umar all beat women, it seems that Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Umar weren't the best of Muslims. (Sami even admitted that Umar needed to be rebuked for his sin.)

V. VIOLENCE TOWARDS SINNERS

Qur’an 5:38—And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as a punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from Allah; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4447—Ibn Abbas reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Sunan Abu Dawud 4448—Ibn Abbas said: If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death.

Qur’an 24:2—“(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let no pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.”

VI. ASSESSMENT

I really like Sami's version of Islam (apart from the fact that it's still false and that he has to twist and mangle his sources to arrive at a peaceful Islam). Sami has the courage to cast aside Islam's greatest scholars and to speak against Aisha, Umar, Ali, etc. He is also willing to reinterpret the clear teachings of the Qur'an and the Hadith when he disagrees with those false teachings. We can only hope that more young Muslims like Sami will take a stand against the early Muslim sources and the violence of the Qur'an. Of course, it would be better if Sami simply rejected Islam. But rejecting the violence is certainly better than nothing.

Shabir Ally vs. Jay Smith: Violence in the Qur'an and the Bible

Recently, Shabir Ally and Jay Smith debated the topic: "The Qur'an and the Bible: On the Question of Peace." Shabir is (in my opinion at least) Islam's top debater. (For all of you Zakir Naik fans, I simply must point out that Naik refuses to face Christianity's top apologists. Shabir faces them regularly.) Shabir rarely debates Muslim topics, so it was good to see him defending Islam this time. I disagree with his arguments, methodology, and conclusions, but he did a great job presenting them. (Compare Shabir's defense of Islam on the issue of violence with Nadir Ahmed's career-ending performance here.) I think Jay needed a bit more time to rebut Shabir's claims, but Jay did a great job as well. I'd like to see them do two separate debates on this issue: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace" and "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?" This would allow a fuller discussion. However, this debate serves as a good introduction to the issue.

PART ONE:


PART TWO:


PART THREE:

Jay Smith vs. Shabir Ally Live at 2:30!

Today at 2:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) viewers can watch Jay Smith debate Shabir Ally on the topic "The Qur'an and the Bible: On the Question of Peace." Jay and Shabir are among Christianity and Islam's greatest debaters, so this should be a powerful exchange of ideas.

Watch It Live!

***UPDATE*** The entire debate can now be viewed here.

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

I’ve taken a couple of months off from blogging, but it’s a new year, and there’s much to discuss. Most importantly, the Shamoun-Ahmed debate is now available, and can be watched by clicking on the screens below. The topic was “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” This was one of the most one-sided debates I’ve ever seen. Nadir is normally confident, but he was noticeably shaken throughout this debate. Nadir also typically scores points through rhetoric (rather than through argument), but his rhetoric was completely overpowered by Sam’s presentations. Sam dominated in his opening statement, in his rebuttals, in his conclusion, and in his answers to questions. Nadir constantly tried to divert the debate to Christianity (this is called the tu quoque fallacy), but Sam did an excellent job focusing on the topic of the debate. I would score the debate 95-5 (95 for Sam, 5 for Nadir). Anyone watching the debate will see immediately why Muslims are so reluctant to debate this topic. (Nadir was the only Muslim in the country willing to do it!)

PART ONE:


PART TWO:


PART THREE:


Sam Shamoun's debates notes (including quotations and references) may be accessed here.

See also the following articles:

The Debate Results Are in!
Nadir Ahmed Exposed! (Textual Criticism and Taqiyya)
Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya
Nadir Ahmed on "Dirty Tricks": Part One
Nadir Ahmed on "Dirty Tricks": Part Two
More Deception from Nadir Ahmed
Nadir Ahmed's First Positive "Review"
Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally