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
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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.
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.
Debate Announcement
September 20th, 2008--Bellflower, California
***10:00 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Was Jesus Crucified or Substituted?"
***2:00 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.***
Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood
"Can We Trust the Qur'an?"
***6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Can We Trust the New Testament?"
September 21st, 2008--Escondido, California
***2:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.***
James White vs. Farhan Qureshi
"Did Jesus Claim to Be God?"
***6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.***
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood
"Is Muhammad a True Prophet?"
For more information, contact Ministry to Muslims.
***10:00 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Was Jesus Crucified or Substituted?"
***2:00 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.***
Farhan Qureshi vs. David Wood
"Can We Trust the Qur'an?"
***6:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.***
James White vs. Osama Abdallah
"Can We Trust the New Testament?"
September 21st, 2008--Escondido, California
***2:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.***
James White vs. Farhan Qureshi
"Did Jesus Claim to Be God?"
***6:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M.***
Osama Abdallah vs. David Wood
"Is Muhammad a True Prophet?"
For more information, contact Ministry to Muslims.
Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain Are Now Legally Binding
Closer . . . closer . . . closer . . .
Sharia will soon be everywhere.
"Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain Are Now Legally Binding"
Sharia will soon be everywhere.
"Islamic Sharia Courts in Britain Are Now Legally Binding"
Saturday, September 13, 2008
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
"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
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Debate Announcement
Sunday, September 14th, 2008
"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"
Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood
2:30-5:00 P.M.
"Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"
David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari
6:00-8:30 P.M.
Location:
2505 Yorba Linda Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92831
"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"
Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood
2:30-5:00 P.M.
"Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?"
David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari
6:00-8:30 P.M.
Location:
2505 Yorba Linda Blvd.
Fullerton, CA 92831
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Muslim Bus Campaign in Chicago
Oh, the freedoms we enjoy in America! I wonder if Muslims would allow me to post an ad on a bus in Mecca: "Jesus is Lord! He's the Only Way to Heaven! For more information, contact www.Acts17.net."
(Note: For Muslims who want to support this Dawah effort, you can donate here.)
(Note: For Muslims who want to support this Dawah effort, you can donate here.)
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
James White on Philippians 2:5-11
Most Muslim objections to the Deity of Christ can be answered with Philippians 2. Christians and Muslims would do well to examine this passage carefully. Here's a talk by James White.
And here's the passage:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
And here's the passage:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Dispatches: "Undercover Mosque (The Return)"
Last year, hidden cameras proved that violence, intolerance, and bigotry are being preached in UK mosques--even in mosques that claim to be moderate and peaceful (click here to watch the original program). Many of the leaders who were exposed promised to clean up their mosques. "Undercover Mosque" returned recently to see whether these leaders have kept their promise. The footage shows that violence, intolerance, and bigotry are still being preached. But I'm sure Muslim leaders will promise (again) to clean up their mosques.
Knowledgeable viewers will notice how the producers of the show are doing everything in their power to convince us that these violent teachings have nothing to do with Islam. They say of some teaching, "But this is nowhere in the Qur'an," as if we don't know that it's in the Hadith (the second source of Sharia). There's a great deal of irony here. "Undercover Mosque" sets out to expose the deception of mosques that claim to be peaceful while secretly preaching violence. But the writers of the show go to liberal Muslims to learn about Islam, and these liberal Muslims completely misrepresent Islam to make it sound peaceful. So if we go to the mosques, they lie and tell us they're preaching peace. If we go to liberal Muslims, they lie and claim that the Qur'an and Hadith promote peace and tolerance. Wherever we go, Muslims are trying to deceive us. Do you know who isn't trying to deceive us? Osama bin Laden. You can say what you want about him, but at least we know where he stands.
Watch Undercover Mosque: The Return in Politics | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Knowledgeable viewers will notice how the producers of the show are doing everything in their power to convince us that these violent teachings have nothing to do with Islam. They say of some teaching, "But this is nowhere in the Qur'an," as if we don't know that it's in the Hadith (the second source of Sharia). There's a great deal of irony here. "Undercover Mosque" sets out to expose the deception of mosques that claim to be peaceful while secretly preaching violence. But the writers of the show go to liberal Muslims to learn about Islam, and these liberal Muslims completely misrepresent Islam to make it sound peaceful. So if we go to the mosques, they lie and tell us they're preaching peace. If we go to liberal Muslims, they lie and claim that the Qur'an and Hadith promote peace and tolerance. Wherever we go, Muslims are trying to deceive us. Do you know who isn't trying to deceive us? Osama bin Laden. You can say what you want about him, but at least we know where he stands.
Watch Undercover Mosque: The Return in Politics | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Sami Zaatari Posts a Preemptive Strike against "Undercover Mosque: The Return"
"Undercover Mosque: The Return" airs today. (The original program can be viewed here.) Sami Zaatari has posted a video response to an article describing the program.
MUSLIM RESPONSE VIDEO:
I find this response interesting, since I can't figure out what the video is complaining about. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the article:
The point of this passage, clearly, is that the mosque claims to promote moderation and dialogue with other faiths, and yet, behind closed doors, the message can hardly be called "moderate." Is the writer doing anything wrong by pointing out the fact that the message the mosque claims to promote is quite different from the one it actually promotes?
The video also complains about the following passage:
The Muslim response video complains that "kuffaars" is written in parentheses and quotation marks. But the writing is entirely correct. Parentheses are supposed to go around a word if a translation is added, and quotation marks go around the word if it's being quoted. Hence, the writer uses both parentheses and quotation marks. How dare he be grammatically correct! Again, our Muslim friend complains about nothing.
The Muslim response video also claims that the West is inconsistent, since this particular article points out the fact that Muslims are saying offensive things about Christians. Apparently, our Muslim friend thinks that the media will never point a finger at anyone who says anything about Islam. Is this true? Were Muslims on vacation when Jerry Vines called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile"? Did they miss the media attention given to Falwell or Franklin Graham when they dared criticize Islam?
"Undercover Mosque" is doing the world a great service by proving, conclusively, that many Muslims who pretend to be moderate and peaceful are simply pretending. This is indisputable. Muslims feel the need to respond to the facts. But with nothing to say, they can only complain about nothing. "Undercover Mosque" complains that Muslims are deceiving us, and that they are preaching violence. The Muslim response video complains about parentheses. Talk about inconsistency!
I think that everyone should read the article carefully, then watch the video response and see how pointless the Muslim response is.
MUSLIM RESPONSE VIDEO:
I find this response interesting, since I can't figure out what the video is complaining about. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the article:
Worshippers are repeatedly told they must lead separate lives from non-believers and not tolerate other religions. Christian teachings are described as "vile and disgusting, an abomination."
The point of this passage, clearly, is that the mosque claims to promote moderation and dialogue with other faiths, and yet, behind closed doors, the message can hardly be called "moderate." Is the writer doing anything wrong by pointing out the fact that the message the mosque claims to promote is quite different from the one it actually promotes?
The video also complains about the following passage:
Unbelievers ('kuffaars') are described in one DVD as: "Evil, wicked, mischievous people - you can see the evil in their face". Whilst Jews, "have abominated, filthy, disgusting gross belief - their time will come like every other evil person's time will come."
The Muslim response video complains that "kuffaars" is written in parentheses and quotation marks. But the writing is entirely correct. Parentheses are supposed to go around a word if a translation is added, and quotation marks go around the word if it's being quoted. Hence, the writer uses both parentheses and quotation marks. How dare he be grammatically correct! Again, our Muslim friend complains about nothing.
The Muslim response video also claims that the West is inconsistent, since this particular article points out the fact that Muslims are saying offensive things about Christians. Apparently, our Muslim friend thinks that the media will never point a finger at anyone who says anything about Islam. Is this true? Were Muslims on vacation when Jerry Vines called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile"? Did they miss the media attention given to Falwell or Franklin Graham when they dared criticize Islam?
"Undercover Mosque" is doing the world a great service by proving, conclusively, that many Muslims who pretend to be moderate and peaceful are simply pretending. This is indisputable. Muslims feel the need to respond to the facts. But with nothing to say, they can only complain about nothing. "Undercover Mosque" complains that Muslims are deceiving us, and that they are preaching violence. The Muslim response video complains about parentheses. Talk about inconsistency!
I think that everyone should read the article carefully, then watch the video response and see how pointless the Muslim response is.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Question for Muslims: Substitutionary Atonement
My last question addressed Original Sin, and Muslims gave several objections. However, some of the responses were to Atonement, not to Original Sin. This leads to my next question for my Muslim friends. What are your objections to the Christian claim that one Being (Jesus) could die for the sins of other beings (us)?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Question for Muslims: Original Sin
I'm taking part in some presentations next month, and I've been asked to list Islam's main objections to various topics. I'll toss this out to my Muslim friends. What are your main objections to the doctrine of Original (or Inherited) Sin?
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
David Wood vs. Ali Ataie: "Who Was Muhammad?"
Here's a debate I did a long time ago at the University of California. The topic was "Who Was Muhammad? The Christian and Muslim Perspectives." If you'd like to have some fun while you're watching the debate, pull out a piece of paper and try writing down Ali's arguments for the Prophethood of Muhammad. You'll need about one line.
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
ALI'S OPENING STATEMENT
REBUTTALS
CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS
You can read some reviews of the debate here and here.
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
ALI'S OPENING STATEMENT
REBUTTALS
CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS
You can read some reviews of the debate here and here.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
"Dispatches: Undercover Mosque" Returns!
For all of my Muslim friends who noted that the producers of "Dispatches: Undercover Mosque" had been accused of editing the violent and intolerant messages being preached in supposedly moderate UK mosques, the people who accused the producers have been found guilty of libel. The producers were awarded 100,000 pounds for the false allegations against them. As if this weren't enough, the show will return with more proof that violence is being proclaimed in the UK's moderate mosques. What is to be done to converts, according to moderate Muslim women at these moderate mosques? "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam." Read More.
Welcome to the religion of peace.
Welcome to the religion of peace.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
James White Responds to Abdullah (Six Parts)
Here James responds to "Abdullah of the UK." Since Abdullah makes a number of errors that are very common among Muslim apologists, these videos are an excellent introduction to Muslim claims about the text of the New Testament.
PART ONE:
PART TWO:
PART THREE:
PART FOUR:
PART FIVE:
PART SIX:
PART ONE:
PART TWO:
PART THREE:
PART FOUR:
PART FIVE:
PART SIX:
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Sheikh Jalal Abualrub vs. David Wood: "Is Muhammad a Prophet?"
Here's the debate I did in April with Sheikh Jalal Abualrub, a Salafi scholar and translator. I think that Jalal did an excellent job (considering the fact that there's just not much that can be said in defense of Islam), which is why I'm disappointed that Jalal doesn't want to debate anymore.
JALAL'S OPENING STATEMENT
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
1ST REBUTTALS
2ND REBUTTALS
CONCLUSIONS/Q&A
JALAL'S OPENING STATEMENT
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
1ST REBUTTALS
2ND REBUTTALS
CONCLUSIONS/Q&A
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Bassam Zawadi on a Biblical "Absurdity"
In a recent debate with Bassam Zawadi, I said that he too readily accepts "problems" in the Bible, while he quickly dismisses errors in Muhammad's teachings. Bassam insisted that he is consistent in his methodology. I thought it would be good to give my readers an example of what I mean.
The Qur'an and the Hadith are filled with absurd teachings about Satan sleeping in our noses and prophets communicating with insects (see here, here, here, here, and here for some examples). Bassam finds Muhammad's teachings entirely plausible. But in an effort to draw attention away from Muslim sources, he has written an article on "Biblical Absurdities." Let's look at one of these "absurdities," to see whether I was right about him being too quick to condemn the Bible.
Well, that certainly seems absurd. Trees and vines talking? This reminds us of Islamic teachings about trees and animals converting to Islam! But let's look at the passage in context, so we can see what Bassam has left out.
Now, in context, is the Bible saying that trees and vines talk to one another (as Bassam has represented it)? Not at all! When we add the context (which Bassam has omitted), we find that this is a parable being told by a man named Jotham. He tells a story to illustrate a point he is making. Hardly an absurdity!
The fact that Muslims will point to this as a problem in the Bible shows how desperate they are to attack the Bible. While I have come to expect this sort of thing from people like Nadir Ahmed, I really think that Bassam is better than this, and that he will remove this obvious misrepresentation from his website so that he doesn't continue to mislead his readers.
The Qur'an and the Hadith are filled with absurd teachings about Satan sleeping in our noses and prophets communicating with insects (see here, here, here, here, and here for some examples). Bassam finds Muhammad's teachings entirely plausible. But in an effort to draw attention away from Muslim sources, he has written an article on "Biblical Absurdities." Let's look at one of these "absurdities," to see whether I was right about him being too quick to condemn the Bible.
Judges 9:8-15
8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.'
9 "But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?'
10 "Next, the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and be our king.'
11 "But the fig tree replied, 'Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?'
12 "Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and be our king.'
13 "But the vine answered, 'Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?'
14 "Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.'
15 "The thornbush said to the trees, 'If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!'
Trees and bushes can speak to each other?
Well, that certainly seems absurd. Trees and vines talking? This reminds us of Islamic teachings about trees and animals converting to Islam! But let's look at the passage in context, so we can see what Bassam has left out.
And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother's relatives, and spoke to them and to the whole clan of the household of his mother's father, saying, "Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, 'Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?' Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh."
And his mother's relatives spoke all these words on his behalf in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem; and they were inclined to follow Abimelech, for they said, "He is our relative."
They gave him seventy pieces of silver from the house of Baal-berith with which Abimelech hired worthless and reckless fellows, and they followed him.
Then he went to his father's house at Ophrah and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, on one stone. But Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left, for he hid himself.
All the men of Shechem and all Beth-millo assembled together, and they went and made Abimelech king, by the oak of the pillar which was in Shechem.
Now when they told Jotham, he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted his voice and called out. Thus he said to them, "Listen to me, O men of Shechem, that God may listen to you. Once the trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us!' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come, reign over us!' But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the vine, 'You come, reign over us!' But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my new wine, which cheers God and men, and go to wave over the trees?' Finally all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come, reign over us!' The bramble said to the trees, 'If in truth you are anointing me as king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.'
"Now therefore, if you have dealt in truth and integrity in making Abimelech king, and if you have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have dealt with him as he deserved--for my father fought for you and risked his life and delivered you from the hand of Midian; but you have risen against my father's house today and have killed his sons, seventy men, on one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maidservant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your relative--if then you have dealt in truth and integrity with Jerubbaal and his house this day, rejoice in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you. But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech and consume the men of Shechem and Beth-millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem and from Beth-millo, and consume Abimelech."
Then Jotham escaped and fled, and went to Beer and remained there because of Abimelech his brother.
Now, in context, is the Bible saying that trees and vines talk to one another (as Bassam has represented it)? Not at all! When we add the context (which Bassam has omitted), we find that this is a parable being told by a man named Jotham. He tells a story to illustrate a point he is making. Hardly an absurdity!
The fact that Muslims will point to this as a problem in the Bible shows how desperate they are to attack the Bible. While I have come to expect this sort of thing from people like Nadir Ahmed, I really think that Bassam is better than this, and that he will remove this obvious misrepresentation from his website so that he doesn't continue to mislead his readers.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Masab Yousef: Hamas Leader's Son Gives His Life to Jesus
Praise the Lord for giving this man the courage to bow down to the Lord Jesus Christ.
FOX NEWS REPORT:
CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY REPORT:
ARTICLE:
"The Prodigal Son"
FOX NEWS REPORT:
CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY REPORT:
ARTICLE:
"The Prodigal Son"
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
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?
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?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
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 . . .)
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 . . .)
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Debate: Morality in Christianity and Islam
WHO: David Wood vs. Farhan Qureshi
WHAT: Debate on Morality
WHEN: Sunday, August 17th, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
WHERE: Sheraton Reston Hotel (11810 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA)
WHY: Why Not?
WHAT: Debate on Morality
WHEN: Sunday, August 17th, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
WHERE: Sheraton Reston Hotel (11810 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA)
WHY: Why Not?
David Wood vs. Bassam Zawadi: "Does the Evidence Show that Christianity Is True?"
Here's the other debate Bassam and I did at Madinah Educational Center. I've watched some of it. I don't think he offered any significant response to my case for Christianity. I also think that some of his responses simply created additional problems for his position (e.g. Allah deceived people into believing that Jesus had died). But, at the same time, I didn't have a chance to respond to some of his claims. (That's the main difficulty when trying to cover a broad topic in a short period of time--some things go unanswered. I'll have to respond to these issues here on my blog, and Bassam can comment.) This debate, however, is a good introduction to the major issues.
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
BASSAM'S OPENING STATEMENT
REBUTTALS
SHORT REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS
Our next debate was "Does the Evidence Show that Islam Is True?" Click here to watch the debate.
DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT
BASSAM'S OPENING STATEMENT
REBUTTALS
SHORT REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS
Our next debate was "Does the Evidence Show that Islam Is True?" Click here to watch the debate.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Muhammad vs. "Locks of Love": Are People who Donate Hair Cursed?
My wife recently had most of her (rather long) hair cut off. The hair was donated to "Locks of Love," an organization that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair due to medical problems or treatments (e.g. chemotherapy). These children are often traumatized to learn that they may be dying. Locks of Love helps them in a small way by providing wigs so that people won't stare at the children.
According to Muhammad, my wife is now under Allah's curse, and so is the little girl who gets my wife's hair (and all who give or receive hair).
Sahih al-Bukhari 5941: Narrated Asma: A woman asked the Prophet saying, "O Allah's Messenger! My daughter got measles and her hair fell out. Now that I got her married, may I let her use false hair?" He said (to her), "Allah has cursed the lady who lengthens hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened artificially."
Sahih al-Bukhari 5940: Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet has cursed the lady who lengthens her hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened.
According to Muhammad, my wife is now under Allah's curse, and so is the little girl who gets my wife's hair (and all who give or receive hair).
Sahih al-Bukhari 5941: Narrated Asma: A woman asked the Prophet saying, "O Allah's Messenger! My daughter got measles and her hair fell out. Now that I got her married, may I let her use false hair?" He said (to her), "Allah has cursed the lady who lengthens hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened artificially."
Sahih al-Bukhari 5940: Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet has cursed the lady who lengthens her hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
David Wood on "Iron Sharpens Iron"
Chris Arnzen invited Bassam and me back on "Iron Sharpens Iron" to discuss our debates. Bassam couldn't make it this time (he needs to spend some time with his family), but it was a good show anyway. We talked mostly about the problems with the Muslim view of Jesus (which, I'll say, all Christians should be examining).
DOWNLOAD THE MP3
DOWNLOAD THE MP3
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Bassam Zawadi vs. David Wood: "Does the Evidence Show that Islam Is True?"
This is one of two debates my friend Bassam and I did at Madinah Educational Center this past weekend (I'll post the other in the next couple of days). Jalal was an excellent host, and the Muslims were all very kind. It's certainly fun debating in a building full of Salafis!
OPENING STATEMENTS:
REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS:
The other debate I did with Bassam ("Does the Evidence Show that Christianity Is True?") can be viewed here.
OPENING STATEMENTS:
REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS:
The other debate I did with Bassam ("Does the Evidence Show that Christianity Is True?") can be viewed here.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)