Islamic AlertA Politically Incorrect Look at Islam Today |
|
||||||||||
|
|
James White vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Unbelievable?Posted by David Wood - November 20, 2008 on 2:10 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments
James White on the Inconsistency of Shabir AllyPosted by David Wood - November 20, 2008 on 1:52 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Earlier this week, James White debated Shabir Ally in London. As usual, James drew attention to the inconsistency of Muslim apologists. Shabir appeals to radical anti-supernaturalist scholars when he discusses the Bible, and yet he would never think of applying the standards of "orientalists" to the Qur'an. Amazingly, Shabir criticizes Christian debaters for the very inconsistency he is guilty of (and, thus, he is inconsistent in his condemnation of inconsistency). Even more amazing, Shabir defends his application of double standards (but would never accept such an absurd defense of double standards from Christians). One has to wonder: If one of Islam's top debaters acknowledges that he cannot attack Christianity without applying double standards, what does this say about his position?Click here for some commentary by James White.
Expelling the JewsPosted by David Wood - November 9, 2008 on 1:21 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments In the 7th Century, Muhammad said: "I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims" (Sahih Muslim 4366). Medinah, which had a massive Jewish population when Muhammad came to town as a peacemaker, watched its Jewish population disappear at the hands of Muhammad. The Caliphs would carry on Muhammad's work of expelling the Jews, as would later Muslims.Nevertheless, Jews managed to maintain populations in various places in the Muslim world--until now. Sixty years ago, for instance, there were more than 100,000 Jews in Baghdad. Today, there are eight. Not eight thousand--eight. READ MORE.
Converts to Christianity Plead for TolerancePosted by David Wood - November 7, 2008 on 7:13 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I certainly hope my Christian brothers and sisters who left Islam will succeed in their plea for tolerance; nevertheless, it seems quite futile to me to ask such a thing of Muslim scholars. By asking Muslims to be tolerant toward Christians (especially those who converted to Christianity) in Muslim lands, they are in effect asking Muslims to reject Muhammad's clear commands. While I would be quite excited to see Muslims reject Muhammad's commands, this isn't likely to happen. However, this should help bring the plight of Christians in Muslim lands to the attention of leaders in the West, and it should alert Europeans to the bleak future that awaits them. READ MORE.
13-Year-Old Rape Victim Stoned to Death (Welcome to Sharia)Posted by David Wood - November 5, 2008 on 2:46 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Thirteen-year-old Aisha was raped by several Muslims. Unfortunately for her, the Qur'an makes her powerless to bring her accusers to justice (unless, of course, she has four male witnesses to support her claim--24:13). Poor Aisha tried anyway, however. She told the Muslim authorities that she had been raped, but since she couldn't produce four male Muslim witnesses to support her claim, the Muslim authorities accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning. Aisha was buried up to her head and stoned by fifty Muslims. Nurses dug her out of the hole to see if she was alive. When they determined that Aisha was still alive, she was again buried and stoned. No one has lifted a finger against the Muslims who raped her, but thousands of rape victims across the Muslim world understand her plight. Welcome to Islam, my friends. READ MORE. READ EVEN MORE.(Yes, I know, Bassam and Sami, before you comment, that I shouldn't draw attention to this, or say that it has something to do with Islam. Shame on me for shining a light on the fruit of your religion.)
James White vs. Jalal Abualrub: “Does the New Testament Teach that Jesus Is God?”Posted by David Wood - November 3, 2008 on 4:12 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments As far as I can tell, this debate was over by the time James finished his opening statement. (One important note: Jalal admitted that God can enter into His creation.)PART ONE PART TWO
Still Waiting to Hear from Sami ZaatariPosted by David Wood - October 31, 2008 on 9:15 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I've asked Sami, over and over again, like a beating drum, to please tell us whether Muhammad's command to kill apostates is applicable today. Based on my interpretation of his comments in our debate, I would say that Sami believes that apostates were only to be killed for a limited time during Muhammad's life because they were spies. According to Bassam, this isn't Sami's position at all. I have to ask Sami what he means, because what he means often turns out to be amazingly different from what he says. So I'll ask again: Sami, will you tell us what you believe about the killing of apostates? And be sure to say it clearly. I don't want you coming back later and saying you meant the exact opposite of what you said and that I'm misrepresenting you because you changed your mind.
What Would Bassam Zawadi Do?Posted by David Wood - October 28, 2008 on 11:57 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Bassam, how would you rule on this execution? What say ye? Yay or nay?NAIROBI, Kenya, October 27 (Compass Direct News) – Among at least 24 aid workers killed in Somalia this year was one who was beheaded last month specifically for converting from Islam to Christianity, among other charges, according to an eyewitness.
Debate Announcement: James White and David Wood Invade LondonPosted by David Wood - October 24, 2008 on 5:56 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments The Yanks Are Coming!Tuesday, 11 November 2008--7:30 P.M. TOPIC: “Does Belief in the Trinity Necessitate Shirk?” PARTICIPANTS: Adnan Rashid vs. James White LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX Thursday, 13 November 2008--8:00 P.M. TOPIC: "Jesus: Divine Son of God or Prophet of Allah?" PARTICIPANTS: James White vs. Sami Zaatari LOCATION: Trinity Road Chapel, 205-207 Trinity Road, Upper Tooting, London SW17. (Contact admin@trinityroadchapel.org for more details.) Saturday, 15 November 2008--10:30 A.M. TOPIC: “The Satanic Verses: Fabricated or Historical?” PARTICIPANTS: David Wood vs. Adnan Rashid LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX Saturday, 15 November 2008--1:30 P.M. TOPIC: “The Biblical Jesus: Why We Chose to Accept and Reject” PARTICIPANTS: David Wood vs. Yahya Hayder Seymour LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX Sunday, 16 November 2008--7:00 P.M. TOPIC: “Peace and Violence in Christianity and Islam” PARTICIPANTS: David Wood vs. Adnan Rashid LOCATION: Westbourne Park Church, Porchester Rd, London, W2 5DX Monday, 17 November 2008--7:30 P.M. TOPIC: "Is Jesus Prophesied in the Old Testament?/Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?" PARTICIPANTS: James White vs. Shabir Ally LOCATION: Twynholm Baptist Church, Fulham Cross, 324-326 Lillie Road, Fulham, London, SW6 7PP. (Contact leigh@twynholm.org for more details.)
Cyber-Jihad?Posted by David Wood - October 20, 2008 on 10:43 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Sunni scholars have declared that hacking and attacking non-Muslim websites is a valid form of Jihad.Egypt: Sunni Scholars Sanction Electronic Jihad
Bassam Zawadis of the World Rejoice: The Killing of Apostates in Iran May Soon Be OfficialPosted by David Wood - October 18, 2008 on 1:00 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments While my friend Bassam Zawadi may not agree with many of the religious teachings in Iran, he must surely respect Iran's willingness to murder all those who leave Islam.Hanged for being a Christian in Iran Bassam, like all dedicated Muslims, condemns those who reject this atrocious practice. Christians should be praying for the persecuted church in Iran. (Before Bassam or Sami comment, let me just say that I know there's a war in Iraq, and that I know there's a nation called Israel. If you can show that these are remotely similar to killing people for leaving a false religion, please bring up the war in Iraq and the nation of Israel. Otherwise, please stop sounding like a broken record anytime someone points out the facts about your religion.)
Bassam Zawadi Responds to Sami Zaatari on the Killing of ApostatesPosted by David Wood - October 17, 2008 on 8:25 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Bassam's defense of killing apostates ("Of Course Apostates Should Be Killed!") isn't directed specifically to Sami Zaatari, but it isn't difficult to see that Sami is his target. In Sami's debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, he repeatedly declared, with absolutely no evidence to support his claim, that the numerous ahadith demanding that apostates be killed only referred to certain people during the time of the early Muslim community (e.g. spies). But it's perfectly clear that this is not what Muhammad said or meant: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. Sami, then, is plainly wrong. I expected Muslims to remain silent about Sami's error; nevertheless, Bassam has shown that, while Sami is dear to him, the Truth is dearer still. (This is why I think that Bassam will ultimately become a Christian.) I think it's interesting to note that, according to Bassam, there are two primary reasons why someone might reject Islam's demand that apostates be killed. First, someone might have little or no faith in Islam. Second, someone might be influenced by non-Muslim standards of morality. What does this say about Sami? I agree with Bassam completely. Sami either doesn't have much faith in Islam, or he's been influenced by Western values. (There is a third possibility, however. Sami could be lying about what he believes in order to deceive non-Muslims into thinking that Islam is peaceful.) Perhaps Sami can tell us which reason applies to him. (But I suspect that he'll just start complaining about the war in Iraq.) Bassam's defense of the killing of apostates raises a number of questions. His primary justification, in effect, is that apostates may lead other people astray. Hence, it's better to kill them so that they don't lead other people to hell. If this is the case, however, why would this only apply in Muslim countries? Can't apostates in America lead Muslims astray? Wouldn't it be better to kill them? And why wouldn't Bassam's defense apply to people like me? I didn't leave Islam, but I'm spreading the truth about Muhammad. Wouldn't it be better to kill me than to let me speak the truth? Shouldn't James White, Robert Spencer, William Lane Craig, Sam Shamoun, Jay Smith, etc., all be killed, since they're leading people away from Islam? I hope that Bassam can clarify this. But regardless of whether he does or not, I hope that he will continue to expose the false teachings of Muslims who have more respect for their own feelings and for Western values than for the clear teachings of Muhammad. (On a completely different note, as someone who teaches Philosophical Ethics, I find Bassam's discussion of "Divine Command Theory" woefully inadequate. But I'll have to address that at a different time.)
The Third Jihad: Abridged VersionPosted by David Wood - October 15, 2008 on 10:41 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Here's the latest film on "radical" Islam. Notice that, once again, the producers go out of their way to distinguish between Islam and "radical" Islam. They do everything in their power to say, "We're not criticizing Islam here. We're simply pointing out the fact that some people who consider themselves Muslims are engaged in efforts to overthrow the West." Notice also the Muslim complaints that will result from this film. Moderate Muslims will say, "How dare you make this video!" But if these moderate Muslims are really against violence, shouldn't they be glad that radicalism is being exposed? The fact that they complain about radicalism being exposed leads me to think that, deep down, they really support radicalism (as Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the Hadith clearly do). Many moderate Muslims are just too ashamed to admit it.
Shabir Ally: What Every Muslim Should Know about CrucifixionPosted by David Wood - October 14, 2008 on 7:59 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments
Yahya Hayder Seymour’s First Defense of His Condemnation of MuhammadPosted by David Wood - October 12, 2008 on 12:05 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Yahya has condemned Christian missionaries who produce, as he puts it, "rice Christians." The obvious problem with his criticism is that Muhammad produced many "camel Muslims" (i.e. people who became Muslims simply because Muhammad kept giving them camels), "gold Muslims" (people who converted for Muhammad's gifts of gold), "family Muslims" (people who became Muslims so that Muhammad would give them their families back), and, while we're at it, "survival Muslims" (people who converted so that Muhammad wouldn't kill them).Yahya has offered two main defenses. First, he says that when he criticized Christianity, he was only referring to people who are in a psychologically weakened state because of their hunger. Now it is obvious that Muhammad also relied on psychologically weakened states--for instance, Muhammad told Malik that he would get his family back if he became a Muslim. Malik promptly converted. And we can't forget about all of the people who converted to avoid war with Muhammad. There was certainly a psychological factor at work there. So however Yahya wants to define his criticism, he certainly condemns the Muhammad we read about in the early Muslim sources. But let's focus on history and sources in the next post. For now, let's pretend that Muhammad never relied on people's psychological distress to convert them. Let's simply go with the passages in which Muhammad gave many gifts to greedy people in an effort to convert them. It seems that Yahya is now saying that he's perfectly fine with this. That is, it's wrong to convert hungry people by feeding them, because they're psychologically unstable. But it's perfectly acceptable to convert greedy people by feeding their greed. So I just want to ask Yahya: Is this your claim now? You've implied it every time you respond by saying, "No, I only meant people who weren't in the right frame of mind . . ." or something along those lines. So would you say that it's okay for Muhammad to convert people by giving them camels and gold? (Here we're laying the issue of historical sources aside for the moment. I simply want you to clarify your claim for now.) To put it differently, consider the following. Here in the West, people love money. Would it be acceptable for rich Christians to go around giving people money in an effort to make them more favorable to Christianity, and ultimately to convert them? If, in a desperate effort to rescue Muhammad, you say it's okay, I would like to know why there's such a difference between the "sickening," "deceptive" practice of feeding people while preaching the Gospel, and the perfectly acceptable practice of giving people gifts and money while preaching the Gospel. I know you're going to say something about psychology. But I'm talking about morality. Why is one immoral and the other moral? If, on the other hand, you say that both practices are immoral, you're stuck with rejecting the many narratives I've quoted, and with showing that no such narrations exist in Shia sources. But at the very least, you would have to admit that the Muhammad we read about in Sunni sources is guily of spiritual bribery, which you now seem quite comfortable with, provided the person isn't psychologically unstable. So according to your position, it would seem to be perfectly okay to win converts through all kinds of manipulative and deceptive methods, so long as people are psychologically healthy. Please clarify, so that I know whether you're condemning the Sunni Muhammad or not. And please don't complain about sources right now. Again, I'm simply asking you to clarify what qualifies as a moral method of conversion and an immoral method of conversion. So tell me whether or not you find the things attributed to Muhammad in the passages I quoted moral or immoral. Then we can move on to a discussion of the sources--Sunni and Shia.
On the Inconsistency of Yahya Hayder SeymourPosted by David Wood - October 10, 2008 on 11:36 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I’m a philosopher by trade, and I have a built-in Inconsistency Detector. As far as I can tell, Muslim apologists are the most inconsistent thinkers on the planet. For instance, in my debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace, Sami Zaatari repeatedly told the audience that our next debate would reveal inconsistencies in my position. Yet, when we had our next debate, Sami was the one who was shown to be inconsistent! This problem seems to be universal in the world of Muslim apologetics. James White often notes in debates that he has been searching for years for a consistent Muslim, but to no avail. When James debated Shabir Ally on the inspiration of the New Testament, James challenged Shabir to come up with an argument against the New Testament that wouldn’t also refute the Qur’an. Shabir had nothing to offer.Given this tremendous problem in the world of Islamic thought, it seemed good to me to start a section on Muslim inconsistencies. Muslims often see something they dislike in Christianity, and they proceed to complain about how awful it is. Then, of course, someone points out that the same thing can be found in Muslim sources. Why didn’t the Muslim notice the obvious? Let’s consider a simple example. Recently, Yahya Hayder Seymour began complaining about “Christian missionaries” who feed people and, in the process, preach the Gospel to them. According to Yahya, it is deceptive to use such methods of evangelism. Here’s how he began: “ . . . I'm beginning to realise that Christians do spread the bible with rather deceptive methods, this man's job is to function as a soldier (despite the fact christians claim to be pacifist) and yet he feels the need to abuse vulnerable iraqis by offering them a different religion along with the aid they are bringing. Much like the ‘Rice Christians’ whom many Missionaries speak of when discussing evangelising the Muslim world.” I pointed out to Yahya that Jesus, during His earthly ministry, met people’s physical needs (by feeding them and healing them) and preached the Gospel to them, and that Christians who feed people and preach to them are simply following Jesus’ example of caring for the whole person. I asked Yahya if he thought this was deceptive. He replied: “I literally mean deceptive! If I attempt to proselytise a Christian who is going through a Nervous Breakdown, that is taking advantage of someone in a rather vulnerable situation. . . . It's really upto you David, produce "Rice Christians" if you will, but I think it's sickening to be honest.” So we can see that, according to Yahya, it’s “deceptive” and “sickening” to take advantage of people by using worldly things to help people convert. Ben Malik, who also seems to have a built-in Inconsistency Detector, immediately noticed the problem: “Talking about rice Christians maybe Yahya can explain surah 9:60 where Muslims are told that part of their alms not only go to finance and fund terrorists but also to entice people to become Muslims. Perhaps he can further provide for us the historical application of this passage by his own prophet so we can see how Muhammad distributed more plunder and booty to the Meccans who had recently been forced to submit to his rule in order to bribe them into becoming or remaining Muslims.” Now let’s look at the evidence. Here’s what Surah 9:60 says: “Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.” (Shakir) The part about alms being given for those “whose hearts are made to incline (to truth)” is the key. Consider Ibn Kathir’s commentary: “There are several types of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum. There are those who are given alms to embrace Islam. For instance, the Prophet of Allah gave something to Safwan bin Umayyah from the war spoils of Hunayn, even though he attended it while a Mushrik. Safwan said, ‘He kept giving me until he became the dearest person to me after he had been the most hated person to me.’ Imam Ahmad recorded that Safwan bin Umayyah said, ‘The Messenger of Allah gave me (from the spoils of) Hunayn while he was the most hateful person to me. He kept giving me until he became the most beloved person to me.’ Muslim and At-Tirmidhi collected this Hadith, as well. Some of Al-Mu'allafatu Qulubuhum are given from alms so that they become better in Islam and their heart firmer in faith. For instance, the Prophet gave some of the chiefs of the Tulaqa' a hundred camels each after the battle of Hunayn, saying, ‘I give a man (from the alms) while another man is dearer to me than him, for fear that Allah might throw him on his face in the fire of Jahannam.’ It is recorded in the Two Sahihs that Abu Sa`id said that ‘Ali sent the Messenger of Allah a gold nugget still in its dirt from Yemen. The Prophet divided it between four men: Al-Aqra` bin Habis, `Uyaynah bin Badr, `Alqamah bin `Ulathah and Zayd Al-Khayr, saying, “To draw their hearts closer.”’” (Ibn Kathir, Volume 4) Just to reinforce Ibn Kathir, here’s a passage from Sahih Muslim: “Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave one hundred camels to Safwan b. Umayya. He again gave him one hundred camels, and then again gave him one hundred camels. Sa'id b. Musayyib said that Safwan told him: (By Allah) Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) gave me what he gave me (and my state of mind at that time was) that he was the most detested person amongst people in my eyes. But he continued giving to me until now he is the dearest of people to me.” (Sahih Muslim 5730) And here’s another passage from Sahih Muslim: “Abdullah b. Zaid reported that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) conquered Hunain he distributed the booty, and he bestowed upon those whose hearts it was intended to win. . . .” (2313) And here’s a passage from al-Bukhari: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, ‘I give to Quraish people in order to let them adhere to Islam, for they are near to their life of Ignorance (i.e. they have newly embraced Islam and it is still not strong in their hearts.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari 4:374) And another from al-Bukhari: “Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed it among four persons: Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi, 'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta'i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Nahban, and 'Alqama bin Ulatha Al-'Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, ‘He (i.e. the Prophet) gives the chief of Najd and does not give us.’ The Prophet said, ‘I give them so as to attract their hearts (to Islam).’” (4:558) And here’s what we find in Ibn Ishaq: “The apostle told [the Muslim deputation] to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. On hearing this Malik came out from al-Taif. . . . He came out by night, mounted his horse, and rode hard until he got to the place where his camel was tethered, and rode off to join the apostle, overtaking him in al-Jirana or Mecca. [Muhammad] gave him back his family and property and gave him a hundred camels. He became an excellent Muslim . . . ” (Ibn Ishaq, p. 593). And Muhammad also asked Muslims in Ibn Ishaq: “Are you disturbed in mind because of the good things of this life by which I win over a people that they may become Muslims while I entrust you to your Islam? Are you not satisfied that men should take away flocks and herds while you take back with you the apostle of God?” (p. 597) Putting all of this together isn’t very difficult. Here’s the syllogism: Premise One: It’s “deceptive” and “sickening” to use the things of this world to win people’s hearts. Premise Two: Muhammad, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira literature, and the commentaries declare that Muslims are to use the things of this world to win people’s hearts. Conclusion: Muhammad, the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira literature, and the commentaries are deceptive and sickening. That’s not my argument. It’s Yahya’s. I should note that this was not the method of Jesus. Indeed, Jesus strongly criticized people who believed in Him simply because He was meeting their physical needs. In John 6:26, Jesus tells some of the people who were following Him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.” He then proceeds to criticize them for not seeking what was most important: the Bread of Life. Sadly, in John 6:66 we read: “As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.” Like Yahya, these people abandoned Jesus to seek someone more to their liking. Interestingly enough, Yahya went to Muhammad, and now he condemns the methods of his favorite prophet.
Muhammad Look-a-Like ContestPosted by David Wood - October 10, 2008 on 4:37 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I wonder how many Christians are going to be randomly killed in retalliation for this contest that has nothing to do with Christians:Muhammad Look-a-Like Contest
On the Deception of Sami Zaatari, Part Two: Do Christians Love Satan?Posted by David Wood - October 9, 2008 on 3:05 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Sami knows that I’ve begun exposing him, so he’s clearly getting desperate. In an article titled “We love you Satan we do,” Sami makes the following argument:During my debate with Christian apologist David Wood [see the debate here] on whether Christianity is a religion of peace David raised a positive case concerning the love that Jesus taught. There you have it, folks. Christians love Satan. It’s too bad that Sami didn’t quote the rest of the passage. Let’s do something that Sami is rarely willing to do. Let's read it in context: [Jesus said:] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48) What do we see as soon as we include the context? Jesus is obviously talking about loving our fellow human beings, for He says that the sun rises on these people, and that God sends rain on them. Does the sun rise on demons? Does God send rain on Satan? Not at all. So is this passage saying that Christians must love Satan? Of course not. Sadly, Sami’s readers won’t know this unless they open up a Bible, because Sami has ripped the passage out of context (as usual). But Sami is somewhat less deceptive about his second point. He says: Not only does David love satan, he loves Charles Manson, OJ Simpson, and every other crook and criminal on this planet! Now that is pretty sick to me if I am honest. In fact this yet again shows that Christianity is not a peaceful religion, or a religion most of us would want, because who in their right mind would love satan, and serial killers etc? You can see how desperate Sami is to rescue himself from his performance in our debate. He couldn’t give us a single reason to think that Christians are ever called to be anything but peaceful, so now he’s saying that, since we’re told to love so many people, Christianity isn’t peaceful! I have to confess that Sami is, for once, partially correct. Christians do love Charles Manson and O.J. Simpson. We absolutely despise their sin (far more than Muslims do), and yet we still care about them. These men were created in the image of God, and even though they have been marred and twisted by sin, that image is still partially intact. I would love to see Manson and Simpson give their lives to Jesus Christ so that they can be regenerated by the Spirit of God, just as the notorious serial killer “Son of Sam” gave his life to Jesus and was delivered from his sin, and just as I was once delivered from a life of violence to serve the living God. So Sami doesn’t like the fact that Christians actually care about the worst sorts of people, and he uses this as evidence that Christianity isn’t peaceful. If you can’t follow his reasoning here, don’t worry. There is no logic involved. Sami will say absolutely anything to attack the religion he hates, whether his claims make sense or not. I must point out something important here, however. Sami acknowledges that he has absolutely no love for people like O.J. Simpson. As a Muslim, Sami should have no love for most of the world, for the Qur’an declares: "Allah does not love those who exceed the limits" (2:190); The God of Islam has no love for anyone except good Muslims. He only loves those who first love him. But in the very passage that Sami began to quote, Jesus condemns this sort of love: For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus condemns the love exhibited by Allah and Muslims. We can see the damage that the Muslim lack of love is doing in the world. How can Muslims justify flying planes into buildings full of people? Since Allah has no love for these people, why would Allah care?
On the Methodology of Sami Zaatari and Bassam ZawadiPosted by David Wood - October 8, 2008 on 6:48 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I'll probably start posting my responses to Sami Zaatari's absurd claims later tonight, but I wanted to address the issue of methodology, which will come up repeatedly in the following weeks and months. Sami is resting part of his defense of Muhammad on an article by Bassam Zawadi (an article which will soon be shown to be completely in error). But to understand the errors these young Muslims continue to make, we need to understand the methodology they use. I'll compare it with my method.David's Method: Step One: Assemble the historical records. Step Two: Apply the principles of the historical method. Step Three: Come to conclusions based on the data. Sami and Bassam's Method: Step One: Figure out, prior to investigation, what they want to believe and what will look best for Islam. Step Two: Try to find at least some kind of evidence that agrees with the claims they decided to believe prior to any investigation. Step Three: Throw out or reinterpret all evidence that proves their view false. To see how Sami reinterprets pretty much everything in the Qur'an and the Hadith concerning violence, just watch our debate here. To see how Bassam does the same thing, consider the following example. In Ibn Ishaq (Islam's earliest biographical source on the life of Muhammad), we read the following narrative about Muhammad torturing a man to find some treasure: Kinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, 'Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?' he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he stuck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515) Bassam admits that he was quite disturbed by the implications of this passage, namely, that Muhammad would torture and kill someone over money. Not surprisingly, he used his methodology to reject the facts about his prophet. Step One: Conclude that Muhammad would never do such a thing. Step Two: Look for evidence to support this view. (Oops, there is none.) Step Three: Throw out sources that prove his view wrong. Thus, Bassam threw out Ibn Ishaq, which non-Muslim historians generally regard as our most accurate source on the life of Muhammad. Apart from the fact that Bassam threw out an early story about Muhammad with no counter-evidence, there's an additional problem with his approach. As Sam Shamoun's article here proves, most of the story is confirmed in Sunan Abu Dawud (most notably the part about Muhammad having Kinana killed because he didn't tell him where the treasure was). So here's what we have. (i) Ibn Ishaq reports a story about Muhammad torturing and killing a man over some money. (ii) Abu Dawud confirms most of the story. (iii) There is no evidence that this event never occured. (iv) Bassam rejects the story, in spite of the evidence, because it makes Muhammad look bad. This is a methodology we will see again and again as we examine the claims of Sami and Bassam (especially in their amazing reinterpretation of the battle between Aisha's forces and Ali's forces). Sam's article includes another example of Bassam applying the same methodology to rule out another embarrassing story about Muhammad--his decision to divorce one of his (many) wives because she was no longer physically attractive. Stay tuned for more!
On the Deception of Sami Zaatari, Part OnePosted by David Wood - October 5, 2008 on 11:34 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments One of the most frustrating things about dealing with Muslim apologists such as Nadir Ahmed or Sami Zaatari is that they will not admit defeat, even when the evidence conclusively proves them wrong. They often speak without knowing what they are talking about; yet, when they are corrected with clear evidence, they will continue to make their false claims. When they continue making these false claims, despite the evidence, they have entered into the realm of deception. This is so common when dealing with Sami Zaatari that I can easily do an entire series on him. I'll begin with a recent comment by Sami. He said:gospel of Luke has a parable. Here Sami refers to Luke 19:11-27, where Jesus gives the "Parable of the Ten Minas." Jesus tells a story about a king who goes away, then returns, and orders that those who have rebelled against him should be killed. According to Sami, the ones doing the killing are Christians. Hence, Christians are going to kill lots of people. The implication is that Christians will ultimately shed a lot of blood. Presumably, this should distract us from the fact that Muslims are commanded to kill people in the world today, and that they're doing so around the world. But there's a problem with Sami's claim--he simply has no clue what he's talking about. He obviously hasn't read the New Testament, apart from verses contained in the arguments he steals from other people's websites. How do I know this? Well, anyone who has studied the Gospels at all knows that Jesus' servants who will carry out his judgement are the angels, not human beings. I proved this in my response to Sami. Sami, In the verse I cited, Jesus is explaining the "Parable of the Tares." In the Parable, Jesus says that the reapers will be commanded to gather up the tares and burn them (13:30). Then, in verse 39, Jesus declares, perfectly clearly, that "the reapers are angels." So who, according to Jesus, will carry out the judgment against those who rebel against Him? The angels. And there are other passages we can go to as well. Jesus states in the "Parable of the Dragnet" that "the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire" (Matthew 13:49-50). Who will judge? The angels. This is also the teaching of the rest of the New Testament. Paul, for instance, refers to the time "when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9). The teaching of the New Testament is completely clear. Thus Sami was simply wrong, and I had corrected him. But watch how he responds. lol lol lol his believers are angels, David i like you, but that just made me laughhhhhhhhhhhhhh, even you dont believe that! everyone knows those believers mentioned in Luke are HUMANS, your giving your view, which isnt agreed upon by other scholars. sorry. Notice that Sami, despite the fact that the evidence conclusively refutes his claim, says that "everyone knows" that the parable refers to humans (i.e. Christians who will go around killing people). One would think that by "everyone" he means his Muslim friends who, like him, know next to nothing about the Bible. But he even claims that scholars agree with him! Well, we've seen what the evidence shows. So who, I ask Sami, are the scholars who agree with you? There are scholars who believe that the parable refers to the judgment of the Jews in 70 AD. But this had nothing to do with Christians. The Romans carried out the judgment. The only alternative is that this refers to the end times, which is what Sami believes. And according to Jesus, it's the angels that will carry out this retribution. So what do we have? Sami completely misrepresents what the Bible says (this is almost always the case when Sami talks about the Bible). The text utterly refutes his claim. At this point, people of greater integrity would admit their mistake and apologize. But not Sami. When he is conclusively refuted, he simply says that everyone knows he's right and that scholars agree with him! Several things are worthy of note. First, we can see how desperate Sami is to come up with something--anything--that implies that Christians are called to violence. But all he can do is twist and distort the Bible in his pitiful attempt to make the teachings of Christianity sound as violent as the teachings of Islam. Second, notice that there is absolutely no concern for truth or accuracy anywhere in Sami's claims. Indeed, he shows exactly the opposite--that he is perfectly willing to deceive his readers in his desperation. Third, it seems that Sami is taking the path of Nadir Ahmed. Instead of attempting to build up his credibility in an effort to become a respected debater, he's choosing to revel in ignorance and deception. If Sami continues, I predict that his career will be over within a year. Fourth, notice that Sami's fellow Muslims will not rebuke him for his atrocious behavior. Instead, they will rush to his defense. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see Yahya and Bassam agreeing with Sami's absurd interpretation. Fifth, if I know Sami, he'll claim that I'm misrepresenting his words. Well, I posted his words, so I'm not sure how he'll be able to make his favorite claim this time. Welcome to the wild and wonderful world of Muslim apologetics my friends. Can a religion that relies so heavily on deception and distortion really be the true religion?
Next Page » |
|
© 2007 Learntheology.com © For Content Belongs To The Respective Authors. Quality Web Design |