"Erick Setiawan" goes from "I have a question" to "Should I kill them?" in the space of three comments.
First, after searching for Zakir Naik videos, he watches my video "Zakir Naik Proves That Jesus Is Muhammad's God!" He then proceeds to criticize the deity of Christ and to show by his objection that he has no clue what he's talking about.
Next, "Erick" sees my "Who Killed Muhammad?" video in the sidebar. He clicks on the video, and, in response to my careful argumentation, calls me a racist.
Finally, after watching this video, he sees my video about Caliph Uthman burning all known copies of the Qur'an ("The Original Burn the Qur'an Day"), and he asks if he should behead Nabeel and me.
Pretty impressive to go through all Three Stages of Islamic Denial (criticize, pull race card, threaten) so quickly. The shocking part is that Erick didn't learn peace and tolerance from his play list, which is filled with Zakir Naik videos.
Several years ago, I posted a video about Muhammad's death, proving from Muslim sources that Muhammad died in precisely the way Allah said he would die if he fabricated revelations. Once again, a devout Muslim has threatened to murder me over the video:
In case you haven't seen the video yet, check out this slab of awesomeness:
According to the Qur'an, both the Torah and the Gospel contain clear prophecies about Muhammad (see Qur'an 7:157). Muslims have had nearly fourteen centuries to find these prophecies, and the most commonly cited New Testament "prophecy" about Muhammad is found in John 14:16, where Jesus declares that the "Comforter" or "Helper" (Greek "paraclete") will come after him. Even though Jesus specifically identifies the Comforter as the "Spirit of Truth" in the very next verse, Muslims claim that the prophecy refers to Muhammad. But can this passage really be applied to Muhammad? In this video, Shabir Ally and David Wood discuss the evidence. (Clips are taken from "Does Muhammad Give Us the Truth about Jesus?")
When Muhammad was challenged as to why he couldn't perform miracles, he responded by claiming that the Qur'an itself is a miracle. This claim has led Muslims to try to find something miraculous about the Qur'an. Muslims such as Shabir Ally now insist that the Qur'an is filled with mysterious numerical patterns (e.g. patterns of the number 7). Is this good evidence, or can such patterns be found in any book? In this short video, Shabir Ally and David Wood discuss the evidence. (Clips are taken from "Does Muhammad Give Us the Truth about Jesus?")
Muhammad once got caught having sex with his slave girl, Mary the Copt, in the bed of his wife Hafsah. After being pressured by Hafsah and Aisha to stop having sex with his slave girl, Muhammad vowed that she was forbidden to him. Later, Muhammad received a "revelation" from Allah (Quran 66:1-2), telling him that his oath was voided and that he could continue having sex with Mary the Copt. Is it reasonable to believe that Allah was so concerned about Muhammad having sex with his slave girl that Allah included verses about it in his eternal Word (the Qur'an)? Would Allah be so obsessed with Muhammad's sex life that he would grant Muhammad the right to break his oaths? In this video, David Wood and Shabir Ally discuss the matter.
According to standard interpretations of the Qur'an, Muslim men are allowed to have up to four wives (see Qur'an 4:3). However, Muslim sources such as Sahih al-Bukhari, the History of al-Tabari, etc., report that Muhammad had at least nine wives at one time. The most common Islamic response to this inconsistency is to note that Qur'an 33:50 gave Muhammad special permission to have as many wives as he wanted. If this is true, however, the Qur'an gave Muhammad special moral privileges, and how can we not be suspicious when a man receiving revelations gets more sexual partners than anyone else?
In this video, David Wood and Shabir Ally discuss whether the Qur'an limits Muslims to four wives. Wood assumes the typical Muslim view, while Ally claims that the Qur'an doesn't actually limit Muslims to four wives.
The Qur'an contains numerous stories that are known to be taken from ancient forgeries. The Qur'an even acknowledges that Muhammad's contemporaries repeatedly accused him of copying his stories from earlier sources (see Quran 6:25, 8:31, 16:24, 46:17, 68:15, 83:13, etc.). Do these forgeries call into question the reliability of Muhammad? Here's my discussion on this topic with Shabir Ally in our debate on whether Muhammad gives the truth about Jesus.
Is the Bible a book of peace? Christians point to Jesus' commands to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" to prove that Christianity is a religion of peace. However, the Bible also contains reports of Joshua invading the land of Canaan, Saul fighting the Amalekites, etc. So what's the Biblical position on peace and violence? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally examine the texts to get to the truth.
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.
Tonight and tomorrow (October 5th-6th), I'll be debating Shabir Ally at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga on the topics "Is the Qur'an a Book of Peace?" and "Is the Bible a Book of Peace?" Those who want to attend can get the details here.
The university will be live-streaming the debate. Here are the links:
Christians believe that the Apostle Paul was one of history's most faithful men of God. Muslims, however, often claim that Paul was a deceiver who corrupted Christianity. Can an examination of the evidence help us decide who's right? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally debate the question, "Does Paul give us the truth about Jesus?"
Christian sources tell us that Jesus is the divine Son of God who died on the cross for sins and rose from the dead. Muslim sources tell us that Jesus (Isa) was a prophet of Islam who didn't die on the cross and never rose from the dead. Who's right? In this debate, Shabir Ally argues that Jesus was a prophet of Islam, and David Wood responds.
Is Jesus the Son of God? Christians and Muslims give very different answers to this question. Can an examination of the evidence show who's right? In this debate, David Wood and Shabir Ally give their reasons for affirming and denying the claim "Jesus is the Son of God."
Here's the schedule for my upcoming debates with Dr. Shabir Ally.
The first four debates deal with Jesus in Christianity and Islam. They will all broadcast live on the Trinity Channel.
Monday, Sept. 28
2:00 P.M. (EST): "Is Jesus the Son of God?"
3:00 P.M. (EST): "Is Jesus a Prophet of Islam?"
Tuesday, Sept. 29
2:00 P.M. (EST): "Does Paul Give Us the Truth about Jesus?"
3:00 P.M. (EST): "Does Muhammad Give Us the Truth about Jesus?"
The final two debates will be held at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. These will be live in front of an audience, but they will also be live-streamed by the university. Check back here on the night of the debates for live-streaming.
Monday, October 5
6:30 P.M. (EST): "Is the Qur'an a Book of Peace?"
Tuesday, October 6
6:30 P.M. (EST): "Is the Bible a Book of Peace?"
In response to Dr. Ben Carson's claim that he wouldn't want a Muslim as President of the United States, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is giving away free copies of the Qur'an. I have a few questions about these free Qur'ans. (In case anyone is wondering, I wouldn't have any problem with a Muslim president, provided he or she doesn't take certain passages of the Qur'an seriously.)
Greetings! I have six debates with Dr. Shabir Ally over the next 16 days (four short debates on the Trinity Channel, and two longer debates at the University of Tennessee). I bought a professional camera last year, but the colors and resolution of the recordings doesn't match that of my other cameras. So, I gave one of my older cameras away, and I'm giving another one away to a friend who wants to start making apologetics videos. I'd like to get good recordings of these debates to put on DVDs. (Some of the debates will be broadcast live, but those recordings will have "Trinity Channel" logos all over them, so I need my own footage.) I think I'll need more than one camera angle to make professional DVDs. If everyone chips in a few bucks, I can get a second professional camera so I can switch angles. (I already have professional mics and Final Cut Pro for editing.) The Canon XA20 is $1999, and about an extra $500 for the warranty, extra battery, SD cards, etc. If you can chip in, donations are tax deductible.
***UPDATE*** I just checked my account, and I have more than enough for the camera I wanted (so, no further donations are needed for the camera). But my friend Josh (who's a videographer) just pointed out that since the camera I have now already has an XLR slot for sound, I don't need an XLR slot on another camera (I only need professional sound on one camera). Cameras without XLR slots are cheaper, so I can actually get two cameras without XLR slots instead of one with an XLR slot. Long story short, I'll be recording the debates from three angles! Thanks, Folks!
Ahmed Mohamed is a fourteen-year-old Texas ninth grader who brought a clock to school to show to his teachers. (As we will see below, Ahmed didn't build a clock. He simply removed the outer casing from an ordinary digital clock.)
Ahmed's teachers decided to err on the side of caution and called police when they thought the clock looked similar to a bomb. For the record, I think their reaction was silly, and I certainly don't believe that Ahmed should have been removed from the school in handcuffs. However, I can understand how someone would conclude that Ahmed had put together a "hoax bomb," especially with a "zero tolerance" policy in place. Consider the following pictures. The top is a suitcase bomb; the bottom is Ahmed's clock.
There is clearly some resemblance, though I'm assuming that Ahmed's clock was much smaller and couldn't pass for a real bomb. But again, teachers are positively encouraged to be suspicious.
Hence, all we can fairly say is that teachers and police, constantly hounded into adopting a "zero tolerance" policy towards anything that looks like a weapon, went overboard and arrested a teenager for building a clock.
But that's not what's being said. Teachers and police are being accused of racism and Islamophobia, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (unindicted co-conspirators in a terrorism funding case) is using Ahmed's story as their latest proof that America is filled with anti-Muslim bigots. Here's a small sample from CAIR's Twitter page to show the mileage the organization is getting from this story:
Of course, CAIR hasn't bothered to present the slightest evidence that Ahmed's arrest had anything to do with Islamophobia. Teachers and police, for all we know, would have acted exactly the same way if the clock had been brought in by a Christian, a Hindu, or a Jew. We might think that CAIR would be more careful when accusing someone of hatred and bigotry, but CAIR only seems to insist on not "jumping to conclusions" when a jihadist is slaughtering infidels.
Due to the instant international outrage, Ahmed has since been invited to the White House by President Barack Obama, been invited to Facebook headquarters by Mark Zuckerberg, and been offered internships at Twitter and Reddit. These invites are supposedly based on his knack for inventing things. However, Dr. Thomas Talbot has shown that Ahmed didn't invent anything. He simply removed the outer casing from a standard store-bought alarm clock and put the insides into his own box.
(If you're wondering whether Dr. Talbot is qualified, he's a research scientist at the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California and Chief Scientist for the Armed Forces Simulation Institute for Medicine at the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center.)
So here's what we have. A teenager took the casing off an alarm clock and put the rest into a box, then brought the box to school. His teachers, pressed into adopting "zero tolerance" policies, thought the device looked similar to a bomb and called the police. Police, suspecting that the student may have intended the clock as a "hoax bomb," removed the student from school in handcuffs. Because the student is a Muslim, the story has been spun into a narrative of bigotry, racism, and Islamophobia by organizations like CAIR and the media and politicians who mindlessly do their bidding. The student, who simply removed the casing from a clock, is now being praised for his brilliance and is about to head to the White House.
What message does this really send to young people?
Though I never agreed much with the late Christopher Hitchens, he was spot-on when he defined Islamophobia as "a word invented by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons."
Paul Williams posted the following on September 14, 2015:
From the two statements above, one from the Apostle Paul,
the other from the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul Williams has concluded that Jesus
and Paul taught two mutually exclusive religions, only one of which can be from
God.
By juxtaposing these two verses under the heading “Two
different religions. Which one comes from God?,” Williams is implicitly
assuming that Paul and Jesus are using “the law” in the same way, which is
something for which Williams offers no exegetical argument. Since the word
“law” and “the law” can be and are used in a whole host of ways in Scripture,
something universally recognized among Biblical scholars, it is incumbent on
Williams to demonstrate that Jesus and Paul are using the term/phrase in exactly the
same way. In other words, Williams is relying on the ambiguity of a phrase
common to the two passages, i.e. “the law,” in order to generate a
contradiction, which is a logical fallacy.
There are other problems with Williams approach to these two
passages, but what is particularly interesting about the above point is that
Paul Williams admitted on the very next day –in a post titled “thou shalt not
commit logical fallacies”– that he is “…tempted to indulge in them [logical
fallacies – AR] from time to time.” Here is Williams’ confession:
Notice that one of the logical fallacies included on the
above list is the very fallacy Williams committed the day before, i.e. “the
fallacy of ambiguity” (aka
equivocation).
Here is the fallacy blown up:
Although Williams admitted that he is tempted to
indulge in logical fallacies from time to time, from what I have seen he succumbs so
often that it would be more accurate to say “time after time.” In any event,
here we have both a confession and clear evidence that Williams’ is not always
honest in his attacks on Christianity. I think it is high time that Williams rename his blog: Blogging Logical Fallacies.
