Debate on Muhammad

[iffo]

http://www.abnsat.com/index.php/en/comp ... s-muhammad

[marduk]

They should have left it to the well spoken clean shaven white guy. The Christian guy is a lousy speaker/debater. Besides, arguing against Islam from the position of Christianity is doomed to failure, because Christianity is only slightly less delusional than Islam and is full of weaknesses. I use it sometimes to argue against Islam but that's only because Jesus is said to have been a real prophet in the Quran so it opens it up to certain attacks.

[Ozes]

The white clean shaven guy is a Christian as well. Matter of fact, he brings up Christianity a whole lot more in his debates and he entertains while he leaves Imams wondering why Allah allows them to be outclassed. Former atheist ^^

Shamoun is an excellent debater too.

[iffo]

I really liked the debate. Even though I believe Christianity is bogus just as any other religion, and can be destroyed in 15 mins. I think Christians did remarkably well in this debate proving Islam to be false.

Muslims have the dis-advantage of debating in a language which is their second language, which makes big difference . But Christians brought evidence and backup what they said from Quran and hadiths .

[Ozes]

Both you guys don't know Acts17apologetics, answering-Islam.com, Nabeel, Shamoun and David Wood?

They are very valuable to the counterjihad. Only recently they won a lawsuit with the Dearborn city council as they had been arrested in i believe 2010 after simply speaking to a rowdy and violent mob of muslims. Naturally everyone here knows like in the Ummah, in the West the police take the side of the muslims. The judge awarded them 100.000$ in 2012 for their civil right violations.

Makes sure to look up acts17apologetics on youtube. They put out very entertaining videos. The video "ABC 20/20" is an important one for those who are disturbed by media hypocracy.

[kaimana1]

The white clean shaven guy is a Christian as well. Matter of fact, he brings up Christianity a whole lot more in his debates and he entertains while he leaves Imams wondering why Allah allows them to be outclassed. Former atheist ^^

Shamoun is an excellent debater too.

Hi ozes and iffo,

Even from the viewpoint of an atheist which no doubt would see sam shamouns arguments as blinkered when it comes to christianity- there is no doubt no one can deny that sam shamoun is one of the most well-researched articulate critics of islam on the net.-that guy is a walking encyclopedia of islam- as for osama abdullahs "answering christianity site" that guy osama has practically invented an entirely new religion in order to counter sam's arguments.

[ringmaster]

What is there to debate?

The prophet was a thief according to the koran itself (verse 8-41). He was also a rapist, murderer, liar, paedophile, adulterer and slave trader.

Why do people waste their time "debating"?

[kaimana1]

What is there to debate?

The prophet was a thief according to the koran itself (verse 8-41). He was also a rapist, murderer, liar, paedophile, adulterer and slave trader.

Why do people waste their time "debating"?

Well, the best way to answer "why do people waste time "debating"?
i suppose the same reason why some people go hang gliding, bird watching, hunting it's for the thrill of it i guess.

[ringmaster]

What is there to debate?

The prophet was a thief according to the koran itself (verse 8-41). He was also a rapist, murderer, liar, paedophile, adulterer and slave trader.

Why do people waste their time "debating"?

Well, the best way to answer "why do people waste time "debating"?
i suppose the same reason why some people go hang gliding, bird watching, hunting it's for the thrill of it i guess.

Debate on debatable issues is fine. For example, when a hockey coach is looking for a good hockey player, he must not only know what a good hockey player is, but also what TYPE of player will best help his team (defensive player versus offensive player, right-handed shot versus a left-handed shot, etc.).

With the prophet, there is no debate. He was the personification of Satan himself. The prophet was nothing more than a common criminal.

[marduk]

Here is a fair and objective assessment of Muhammad's character by modern scholars;

Modern scholars, such as Sprenger, Noldeke, Weil, Muir, Koelle, Grimme, Margoliouth, give us a more correct and unbiased estimate of Mohammed's life and character, and substantially agree as to his motives, prophetic call, personal qualifications, and sincerity. The various estimates of several recent critics have been ably collected and summarized by Zwemer, in his "Islam, a Challenge to Faith" (New York, 1907). According to Sir William Muir, Marcus Dods, and some others, Mohammed was at first sincere, but later, carried away by success, he practised deception wherever it would gain his end. Koelle "finds the key to the first period of Mohammed's life in Khadija, his first wife", after whose death he became a prey to his evil passions. Sprenger attributes the alleged revelations to epileptic fits, or to "a paroxysm of cataleptic insanity".

Zwemer himself goes on to criticize the life of Mohammed by the standards, first, of the Old and New Testaments, both of which Mohammed acknowledged as Divine revelation; second, by the pagan morality of his Arabian compatriots; lastly, by the new law of which he pretended to be the "divinely appointed medium and custodian". According to this author, the prophet was false even to the ethical traditions of the idolatrous brigands among whom he lived, and grossly violated the easy sexual morality of his own system. After this, it is hardly necessary to say that, in Zwemer's opinion, Mohammed fell very far short of the most elementary requirements of Scriptural morality. Quoting Johnstone, Zwemer concludes by remarking that the judgment of these modern scholars, however harsh, rests on evidence which "comes all from the lips and the pens of his own devoted adherents. . .And the followers of the prophet can scarcely complain if, even on such evidence, the verdict of history goes against him".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm

This person, who is so easily seen by any competent unbiased scholar as one who was at first sincere but then became corrupted by his own fame and growing herd of booty hungry followers, is the great example which all Arabs and Arab wannabes try to emulate, a guy who doesn't meet even the lowest standards of morality. How come a billion people can't see what it took a few scholars about 5 minutes to see? How can they explain THAT? Absolute power absolutely corrupts, and Muhammad's followers actually accepted his assertion that it was divinely commanded that every word he said MUST be obeyed as if Muhammad was God himself. When a person has a herd of idiots willing to accept him as God on earth, for all intents and purposes, he tends to start indulging all of his previously unsatiated carnal desires. That's exactly what happened and his followers were dumb enough to record it all. Than you, hadith writers, for telling us just exactly how corrupt Muhammad became, ordering the brutal assassination of even women who merely made unflattering poems about him. Compare this self-centered murderer with the Final Prophet Mani, to whom insults were like throwing flowers at an elephant. Mani taught people to ignore insults, Muhammad taught them to go to the person's home and kill them. Wow, such highly advanced morals, huh?

In my opinion, there is literally nothing that a person could say which would be grounds for murdering them, unless it's "I'm going to kill you". In which case you would be foolish to let them live long enough to carry out their stated goal. Just my opinion. Others may say you should wait until the bullet is already in your head, but I tend to disagree. The way I see it, if a person is dumb enough to announce his intention to kill you then you should thank them for the information and then promptly kill THEM, otherwise there is no situation in which it is reasonable other than protecting your family from an intruder. If someone appears in your house and you didn't let them in, they are giving you the message "I'm here to get killed, please shoot me". Why else would they be there, right?

If a person is found guilty of murder then you still have no right to put them to death, unless there is irrefutable evidence like DNA or being recorded on camera. Eye-witness testimony is too unreliable. You must lock them up and feed them enough to keep them alive and wait to see if any additional information comes to light indicating that they were wrongly convicted. If even one innocent person is put to death then the death penalty is shown to be evil. I think more than one innocent person has been put to death, even in democratic America. Would you want to be the person who pulled the switch and then the real killer came forward the following week?

[marduk]

I seriously think Muhammad had a case of dual personality, not being sarcastic. One verse has Allah telling people how to visit Muhammad without irritating him, because "he is too shy" to tell them himself. That's what the alternate personality does, it takes over when the normal personality is too weak. Also, sometimes Muhammad had to wait for a month or more for a revelation about something he was concerned about. Why would he make himself wait that long if he could make up the "revelations" anytime he wanted to?

Dual personalities develop when a child is under extreme stress. It's a coping mechanism that the brain uses so the person doesn't just go completely insane. Muhammad had a very rough childhood, being abandoned and ostracized by his own family because of his illegitimate conception. That alternate personality wouldn't have been the "Allah" personality from when he was 40 or whatever, but one that nobody really noticed. Then later when he was going to the cave and starving himself etc he was under a lot of stress from that and the alternate known as "Jibril" expressed itself. There were actually at least two alternates at that time, one being Jibril and the other "Allah". They would freely transition from one to the other, so you have the Quran sounding like it's Jibril one moment and Allah himself the next. This is also why they used the term "we". No, it wasn't the "royal" we, it was literally more than one personality. Sadly, these alternates were rather violent and sexually insatiable.

A careful reading of the Quran reveals a remarkable consistency, not that there are no contradictions just that the very same wording would be used for certain things in various different suras. The personality that was composing the Quran was capable of keeping the story straight over a long period of time, I'll grant it that. A normal personality can't do that, it's too complicated, but the subconscious brain can. That's who composed the Quran, Muhammad's subconcious mind.

If you investigate the case of Jane Roberts and the "Seth" personality who came through her in a trance-like state and composed pages and pages of material, all of which remarkably consistent and complex and yet you know for a fact that it's sheer lunacy what Seth is saying. He said that we create our own reality, literally forming it continuously with our thoughts. Yeah, nuts right? But nonetheless it almost made sense in a weird kind of way. The Quran is the same way. It presents a view of reality which almost makes sense and seems consistent, in a weird kind of way. Jibril was Muhammad's Seth. There are lots of videos of Jane Roberts doing this. Just search YouTube and you'll see what I mean. Edgar Cayce was the same way. The subconscious mind is capable some some pretty amazing fabrications.

[Jonah]

The white clean shaven guy is a Christian as well. Matter of fact, he brings up Christianity a whole lot more in his debates and he entertains while he leaves Imams wondering why Allah allows them to be outclassed. Former atheist ^^

Shamoun is an excellent debater too.

Your friend Shamoun gets grilled here.

[kaimana1]

Your friend Shamoun gets grilled here.

Considering that was sam shamouns very first public debate back in 2000 he held his own pretty good.

[Jonah]

Your friend Shamoun gets grilled here.

Considering that was sam shamouns very first public debate back in 2000 he held his own pretty good.

Considering that he never had a major debate after that id say he got grilled and learned his lesson.

[kaimana1]

Considering that he never had a major debate after that id say he got grilled and learned his lesson

You could just as easily say the reverse- shabir got grilled and learned to never debate sam again-

have you seen the entire video that you posted Ghaith ???

[Jonah]

Considering that he never had a major debate after that id say he got grilled and learned his lesson

You could just as easily say the reverse- shabir got grilled and learned to never debate sam again-

have you seen the entire video that you posted Ghaith ???

Several times. Sam didnt have any major debates ever again not just against Shabir.

So kai would you read Eze 23 to your children?

[Centaur]

that debate prove nothing, i cant see shabir Ali winning there, if there is a winner it looks like sam.Its shame sam didnt bring up the Paedophilia,rape and incest of Mohammed.the message of Jesus is much superior to the inferior message and character of Mohammed.ha ha virgins for men and none for women in allahs paradise
the most elaborate debates are written ones not stage shows which some times deteriorate to personality context than debate

[Centaur]

it could be shabir that ran away he never want to debate whether Mohammed was a prophet or not

[Jonah]

it could be shabir that ran away he never want to debate whether Mohammed was a prophet or not

Im not say Sam didnt debate Shabir after that. Im saying Sam never had another MAJOR debate with any other major debater.

Sam got grilled on Eze 23, Pi, Jere 8:8. And the part when he starts saying go to my website i have the answer there is hillarious.
Your just biased Centaur.

Here your Sam Shamoun is having a hard time explaing the stupidty of 2 Timothy 3:16.



Sam and his little friend are Wood are like small insects compared to Dr william Craig.

You can enjoy his grilling here

[Centaur]

Ok but did you notice shabir Ali refusing sams request to debate Mohammed was a prophet or not? In my life I have never seen a muslim having apublic debate on this with serious a debator.I dont expect to see it in future either.

here is another shamoun debate


that debate shamoun running away is bollocks, looks like something made up by muslims.Muslims generally want to debate whether trinity right or wrong,errors in bible egtc and want to leave Koran untouched.thats the tactic from late Deedat on.