Tag Archives: David Wood

Sam Shamoun and Lying by Dr. Shabir Ally – Part 2

Shabir Ally

October 1, 2015

Now that I am back in Toronto, and have access to my books, I am able to write a more telling response to Sam and his accusation about lying. I also had a chance to review the recording of what I said during the debate, and Sam’s interaction with me during the Q&A.[1]

Two things (at least) will become evident below:

  • I correctly cited that book of Robert Gundry to which I was referring;[2]
  • In order to generate his proof that I misquoted Robert Gundry, Sam actually misquoted me!

This is a sad day for Muslim-Christian dialogue.

Having listened to the recording, I still have the question that I had put to Sam during that conversation. Sam had said that he had two books right in front of him: one book is Robert Gundry’s commentary on the New Testament; the other book is Gundry’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular. Sam read a portion from the commentary on the New Testament which obviously includes a brief commentary on Matthew’s gospel.[3] That is not the book I had cited. I had studied and cited the other book: the commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular.

So, I asked Sam for the page number of the relevant section of the commentary on Matthew’s gospel in particular. Instead of supplying this simple piece of information, Sam kept telling me pages 135-36 of the book which he had read from. I asked him why he could not simply tell me the page number of the relevant section of Robert Gundry’s commentary on Matthew’s gospel which he said he also had in his possession at the time. Sam admitted that the page numbers he was giving me were from Gundry’s commentary on the entire New Testament, But when I asked him again for the page number of the commentary dedicated to Matthew’s gospel, there was a definite silence. I thought he had hung up. But he was still on the call. Why the silence?

Moreover, in listening to the recording I realized all the more how bizarre was the conversation between me and Sam. I kept asking him for the page number of a book which he claimed to have with him. In response, he kept challenging me to read a book which I did not claim to have in my possession at the moment. Naturally, I could not read a book I did not have in my hands; I could only accurately quote the most relevant line from my head. But, for some reason, Sam was unable to give me the page number of the book he had in his hands even though the relevant page number is easy to find. The commentary progresses from the start to the end of Matthew’s gospel, and the page headers show the progression verse by verse. It would have been a snap for Sam to thumb through the commentary following the page headers to chapter 28 and then to its verse 19 and give me the page number.

Obviously, he later located the relevant page number of a commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, this being the first book Sam referred to in his article composed on that same date.[4] It would be interesting to trace the relationship between this commentary and the one I was citing. It seems that the one Sam is referring to is the second edition of the same book, now with a different subtitle.[5] The page numbers of the relevant sections are the same, and the wording is strikingly similar, though the subtitles are different.

Now, the book I was citing really said on p. 596 what I cited it to say. So too does the second edition, as is evident from Sam’s citation in his article. But both of these are dissimilar to the book which Sam was reading on air.

To understand what is going on here between me and Sam, one has to see the big picture, as follows. In debates between Muslims and Christians, Muslims argue that in the Old Testament Yahweh is the only God. Jews agree. Many Christians also agree. Consequently, for Jesus to be God, he would have to be Yahweh. But if he is Yahweh, then he is the only God, and therefore the Father and the Holy Spirit would not be God.

In response to this clear logic, some Christians cite Matthew 28:19 as proof that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each Yahweh, and yet altogether Yahweh. In that verse, Jesus directs his followers to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Christians point out that the name here is singular, though the named persons are three. Hence they insist that Jesus is Yahweh, the Holy Spirit is Yahweh, the Father is Yahweh; yet altogether the three are Yahweh.

This is the big picture, the context within which I am using the citation from Robert Gundry. I am saying that according to Robert Gundry the verse does not imply that the three persons bear the same name. According to him, the verse is not actually referring to their name; rather, the verse is saying that the baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Here is an approximate transcript of what I said, as evidenced by the video recording:

In Matthew’s gospel towards the end where Jesus says, “Go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” some will take that as an expression of Trinitarian doctrine. But in fact, as Robert Gundry says in his commentary on Matthew’s Gospel, it does not actually mean that—it does not mean that the three of them have just one name—it means, ‘Go and baptize with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.’ It does not mean that the three are one. In fact, there is no passage in the New Testament gospels or in any of the writings of the New Testament that says that the three—the Father Son, and Holy Spirit—are together as one God.[6]

This is what Sam needs to address. Instead, he changes the subject to me. But attacking me will not remove the problem. The problem, as the clear logic above indicates, is that there is only one God Yahweh, as Jews, Christians and Muslims agree.[7] According to Matthew 12:18, Jesus is the servant of Yahweh. This too Muslims and even Christians accept. But Christians insist that, in addition to being the servant of Yahweh, Jesus is also Yahweh himself. I have been refuting this latter claim with my clear logic. And now Sam wants to attack me. But my logic is not exclusively mine. Logic is universal. To get rid of this problem, Sam does not need to attack me, he needs to battle with the fundamental laws of nature, or the designing work of God who fashioned us to think logically. He needs to battle with his own thoughts which cannot escape the same logic.

When Sam called, he accused me of claiming that Robert Gundry in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel denies that Mt. 28:19 is a Trinitarian text.[8] But that is not what I claimed.

In the above transcript of the relevant portion of my speech, I started out with my own statement, cited Gundry, and then ended with my own statement. I can see where at first glance it may not be clear to others where I intended to end my citation of Gundry. But if that was not clear at first, during the call I explained to Sam:

In that commentary, Robert Gundry says very plainly that the idea that the mention of Father, Son and Holy Spirit should mean that they share the same name—that is not the idea. He is saying that the idea there is that the baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I am not saying anything more than this.[9]

Notice that last sentence: ‘I am not saying anything more than this.’ Now it should be clear that I am only claiming as follows: in a particular book, Gundry denies that Mt 28:19 implies that the three persons bear the same one name.

Despite my taking pains to clarify the point on air, however, Sam charges in his writing composed after the debate:

Ally basically claimed that Gundry denies that this text supports the Triune nature of God.[10]

That is not what I claimed.

I am not saying that Gundry is not a Trinitarian, or that he denies that Mt. 28:19 can be put to Trinitarian use, etc. It should be clear to all students of logic that a statement of the form,

‘A does not imply B’

does not mean the same as,

‘A implies that B is not the case,’

and it does not mean the same as,

‘I deny B.’

In what follows, I will replace B with ‘the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name.’

Logically, therefore, when I cite Gundry to say,

‘Mt. 28:19 does not imply that the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name,’

that is not the same as citing him to say,

‘Mt. 28:19 implies that the Father, Son and Spirit do not share the same name.’

And it does not mean the same as citing him to say,

‘I deny that the Father, Son and Spirit share the same name.’

It is really sad to see Sam misquoting me to prove his charge that I misquoted someone else. Sam does not like my message. But does that justify shooting the messenger? Dialogue between Muslims and Christians need to move beyond such tactics. We need to listen to each other, learn, and pray to God asking him to guide us all.

Finally, the book I was citing was published in 1982 for an academic level of readership. It caused a stir in evangelical circles leading to Gundry’s resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society. The book Sam read on air was published 28 years later in the year 2010 for a more common readership.

This latter work, from which Sam’s read to me on air, and which he cited second in his article, clearly supports Sam’s contention that Gundry believes that the three divine persons are included in ‘the name.’ I am grateful for this information. I did not know it until Sam pointed it out. And I am glad that I did not overstate my case in citing Gundry. However, if I do cite him again, on this matter, it will be appropriate for me to add that Gundry apparently changed his mind about this as is evident from his later writing. Why he apparently changed his mind would be interesting to learn. Is it that the two books were meant for two different audiences, in which case he was willing to tease the academic community but not the masses? Did the negative response to his earlier book cause him to be more cautious? Or, did he find new evidence to convince him that his earlier statement was incorrect?

In short,

  • I correctly cited Gundry’s earlier statement,
  • I am willing to incorporate his later statement in future citations, and
  • I am grateful to Sam for alerting me to this, but
  • I find it at least ironic that Sam would misrepresent me to prove that I misrepresented Gundry.

[1] The recording can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idHxegbSunQ&feature=youtu.be. Sam’s call comes in at 2 hours and 14 minutes into the recording. My thanks to Brother Nazam for pinpointing this location.

[2] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 596.

[3] Sam was referring to Gundry, “Matthew,” Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2010) pp. 135-136.

[4] http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

[5] Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2nd edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).

[6] This begins at approximately 19:55 and lasts for about 40 minutes.

[7] Though Muslims call him by another name Allah, which is also in the Bible in Arabic translations. See Genesis 1:1.

[8] At 2:14 in the recording.

[9] At 2:16:40.

[10] http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

Sam Shamoun and Lying by Dr. Shabir Ally – Part 1

Shabir Ally

September 30, 2015

During my debate with David Wood on ABNSAT, Sam Shamoun called in to challenge one of my statements. According to my statement, Robert Gundry said that the formula in Matthew 28 does not imply that the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the same name. Rather, the formula means that baptism should be done with fundamental reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Sam claimed that Gundry wrote no such thing, and he had Gundry’s books to prove it. I pointed out that I was referring to another book by Gundry. But Sam was not convinced by my plea. Rather, he was convinced that I was lying. Hence he wrote to that effect here:

http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2015/09/catching-shabir-ally-red-handed.html?m=1

In that document, Sam cites two books of Gundry, and links to a third, all to prove that Gundry did not voice the view I attributed to him.

However, in each case he is referring to a book other than the one I was referring to. As I am away from my hometown at the moment, I cannot check the reference at the moment, but here is something I found on my laptop that I had written elsewhere complete with a reference to the book I was referring to.

As for the apparent Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19, Robert H. Gundry writes that “Matthew seems to be responsible for the present formula.”[1]

As will be immediately clear, this is not the same as any of the three books Sam cited or referred to in his above linked article. It should also be clear that Gundry is saying that Matthew is responsible for the saying whereas we would expect Christians to think that Jesus actually said this.

Sam apparently assumed that the books he came across are the only books that Gundry wrote on the subject. Instead of hastily composing an article claiming that I was lying, he should have asked me for the reference to the specific book I was citing, and then check the reference in that book. As it turns out, people these days are too quick to assume the worst about other people but the best about themselves.

Even if it turns out that the book I was referring to does not contain the material I cited, does this necessitate a charge of lying? Or, could it be a case of citing from memory and recalling incorrectly as humans sometimes do?

During the debate itself, I cited many other books, some of which I had on the desk before me. These too I cited from memory, as is my usual style in debates. I do not claim that my memory is impeccable. However, in how many cases did Sam find a significant discrepancy between my citations and my named sources? If it is just this one, does that require such a serious charge? Is Sam here exhibiting the usual charitableness of Christians? If we go about slinging such uncharitable accusations against each other will that lead to better dialogue and mutual understanding?

When I get back to Toronto, I will check again to see if my memory serves me correctly, and thus that Gundry said what I cited him to say. Otherwise, I will issue a public retraction. But if what I cited is correct, will Sam retract his article and issue an apology for his false accusation?

Meanwhile, it is interesting to know that after Gundry published this critical commentary in 1982, some evangelical scholars called for his resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society. He resigned in 1983.

Does that sound like Gundry was saying in this book what Sam wants to hear?

[1] Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) p. 596.

Mari Kaimo: Religious Beliefs Not to be Discussed in Group About Religious Discussion

I’m not exactly sure if I’ve lost my sanity or if I’m misunderstanding something. Let’s take a look at this group’s definition:

cc-2014-mari2

 

If I’m reading this correctly, this is a group created for the purpose of Muslim and Christian Discussion. Just to ensure I’m understanding this, I checked the group’s “about” definition:

 

cc-2014-mari6

 

I was a bit surprised while scrolling through my newsfeed to see the following:

cc-2014-mari1

An Anglo-Christian person being removed for heresy, in a group which its purpose is to discuss religious belief…..that’s….odd? So I decided to look a bit closer:

cc-2014-mari3

Mari Kaimo wastes no time, if you reject the Bible – you’re a heretic, which is odd in a group that is dedicated to Christian and Muslim dialogue. It suddenly made sense why I could find at most 1 or 2 active Muslims commenting in the group. They’ve been banning Muslims in a Christian-Muslim religious dialogue group because to them, Muslim beliefs were heretical.

piccard facepalm

 

Surely, this “Preacher” and friend of Shamoun would know that in a dialogue group about religion, there would be users who practised different religions in all their forms and differences. Surely? I guess not:

cc-2014-mari4

Where is this leading…?

cc-2014-mari5

I had just one reaction, this just sums it up entirely:

flip table

 

I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous things in my life. This is by far, one of the single most absurd things I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing. I probably stared at my screen for a few minutes, in sheer awe at the line of reasoning being played out in front of me. To recap….., this is a group created for the purpose of inter-faith dialogue and discussion. However, if you practise a religion which Christianity (as believed in by Mari Kaimo) disagrees with, you’re going to be kicked out/ removed. Surely, there are smarter people out there in the world. I’ve said it once before and I’ll say it again, this guy is a walking, talking, breathing contradiction inside and out. I pray that this is bad sarcasm at work, there is nothing, no excuse that can allow anyone to rationalize the absurdity of such a situation. If this is anything to go by, I thank God that these are the Christian Apologists and Missionaries that currently lead the Christian faith. They have made our job of conveying Islam so much easier. With people like these, there is no question as to why so many Christians quite literally get frustrated and leave the faith. I feel embarrassed for the Christian community because of this guy, in no way does this person represent a religion with 2000 years worth of study behind it.

and God surely, very surely, knows best.

China’s Violent Christian Cult [BBC]

You won’t find this as an example of religious extremism on David Wood’s site or on Atlas Shrugs. I’d like to emphatically state that this cult is not representative of all Christians or of the Christian faith. What this video is an example of, is the end result of radical, violent, hateful figures who prey on those who don’t agree with their extremist rhetoric. Humans partake in religion, humans are violent, religious humans can be and will be violent – it’s human nature and they’ll justify their violence through whatever philosophy or ideology or religion that allows them to do so. What people like Sam Shamoun and David Wood are afraid to come forward and say is that Christians have been and can be violent too. It’s just under reported. They will celebrate and gladly announce how the Christian Church is growing in China, but they will never say that it as a result of violent, hateful Churches like these, producing cults!

Maybe someone can shoot David Wood or Pamela Geller an email and ask them why they don’t also highlight the growing trend of violent Chinese Christian cults?

and God knows best.

David Wood’s Hypocrisy

David recently posted the following,

“Devout Muslims bow down to the Kaaba five times per day, and when they take the pilgrimage to Mecca, they try to kiss the Black Stone. These practices are sheer paganism, but they are essential to Islam.”

What does he consider Jews making pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall, kissing and bowing to it?

What does he consider Christians bowing and kissing crosses?

Unlike in either Judaism or Islam where each faith shares the common concept of a qiblah/ derek, which is a direction of prayer and not worship of an object, this distinction loses its way among Christians due to their inability to understand either Jewish belief or Islamic belief; such a belief is Christianity part and parcel of Christian belief and thinking. If the act of bowing towards an object is paganism, then what does he consider bowing to crosses, or even images of Jesus, or better yet – to Jesus himself – a creation of God?

For more information on why Muslims bow towards and not to the Kabaah, see the following article.

and Allaah knows best.

 

David Wood’s New Publicity Stunt Contextualized

Remember kids, David loves you. He loves you so much, that when 200 kids are put in harms way and the buzz word Muslim is mentioned, he’s going to offer help. However, if a couple thousand Sudanese Christians are being killed over a 6 month period, it’s not a problem. When Lord Resistance Soldier’s, a Christian terrorist group goes on murdering and rape rampages, it isn’t poor David’s problem. After all, those Christians only kidnapped around 50, 000 kids, what publicity is he going to get for a stunt like that?

cc-2014-davidwood-bokoharam

 

 

and God knows best.

Nabeel Qureshi Questioned…

Now, this man who goes by the name ‘Radical Moderate’ gives cash to the Christian hate preacher, David Wood, who nudged Nabeel Qureshi towards Christianity. Here’s his anti-Muslim comment that he sent to me via email in which he rejoices in the death of Muslims and hopes for more:

“But Muslim terrorists blowing up other Muslim terrorists using homicide bombers is Manna from heaven. Lets hope that trend continues.” – Radical Moderate (minion of David Wood).

 

I understand Dr Nabeel Qureshi didn’t make this comment and nor does he have any control over those who have followed/supported him in the past but it’s really worrying that Nabeel has never gone on public record to disassociate himself with his former associates who are effectively radicalised hate-preachers against Muslims.

The comment above is coming from somebody who has informed me that he has committed serious amounts of money to Nabeel Qureshi’s hate preacher friend, David Wood. As David and Nabeel worked together in the past, it’s not unreasonable to imagine some of that money went to Nabeel Qureshi. How does Nabeel feel about the possibility of having received cash from such hate-filled supporters? How does Nabeel feel about having teamed up with radicalised Christian hate preachers in the form of David Wood and Sam Shamoun. How does Nabeel Qureshi feel knowing that his former colleague Negeen Mayel denounced his best friend as self radicalised?

This is something Nabeel Qureshi needs to look into. Is it odd that he has never made a statement on his radicalised Christian hate-preacher associates? Never denounced the hate-filled lies and mockery that his associates have spewed in the direction of Muslims? Never added to his former colleague’s rejection of his radicalised Christian hate preacher friends?

Mark Bennet Inciting Deceit for Popularity

In the below screenshot from the still public profile of Christian extremist and mouth piece of one Sam Shamoun, Mark Bennet (who thrives off of stealing personal photos of people and publishing sexual scenarios, using the photos he stole), we can see the claim of a Christian woman. This Christian, states that I ran away from a debate and I am a coward, because I refused to debate a team of Christian apologists willing to fly to my home country of Trinidad and Tobago. To demonstrate the wicked and deceitful nature of these specific Christian extremists, I give you the entire chat log from Facebook with said woman. I invite Miss Jane Kim to publish the chat log on Mark’s website to validate the chat log below. Nothing has been edited or removed. This is the fruit of the Holy Spirit among Christians, inventing claims and lying for popularity and donation monies.

cc-2014-markbennet-lying

 

Let’s focus on this one woman’s claim, lauded by Mark Bennet and his gang of sexually deviant extremists (see this article and this other article):

 

  • 28 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 17:44

    Facebook User

    Hello Ijaz, My name is Kim and I have been reading your posting and thought it would be fabulous if you would be willing to be open for perhaps a Christian debate? If you are open for the idea, please let me know? Thank you so much for your consideration, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 18:48

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Hi Kim,

    I’m always open for debate.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 18:55

    Facebook User

    Oh that is wonderful. Would you be open to a video debate perhaps one on Skype or Paltalk which also has Video Rooms?

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 19:17

    Ijaz Ahmad

    My upcoming debate is on paltalk, audio only though.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 19:18

    Facebook User

    Would you be interested in setting up a Video debate perhaps in 30-90 out?

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 19:25

    Facebook User

    (sorry I meant to say 30-90 days out)?

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 19:32

    Ijaz Ahmad

    with whom? You?

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 19:43

    Facebook User

    No, not me but perhaps a friend of mine from India

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 19:50

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I don’t usually debate any Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along, have your friend contact me and I’d see if they’re up to mark.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:07

    Facebook User

    Oh, I see, well I do not want to bother him if you say no, so here take a look at his credentials before I mention it to him and let me know what you think and what your timeframe looks like, ok?He is part of the Sakshi team and perhaps if you agree I can arrange for the debate. The following is their link, but the man speaking is not my friend. Kindly, Kim

    http://www.sakshitimes.net/blog/2008/12/25/debate-invitation/

    This attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:08

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I know about Sakshi, they won’t debate me. You are free to try and arrange it though.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:09

    Facebook User

    Consider it arranged….my friend said he would love to debate you at least 30 days out.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:11

    Facebook User

    Why dont you name the date and I will arrange the room through Paltalk Video….here are some topics would any of these interest you? 1. Crucifixion of Jesus Christ and Death of Muhammad

     

    2. Sin and Salvation in the Bible and the Quran

     

    3. Is Muhammad the prophet mentioned in the Bible (Looks one sided, but couldn’t think how to make this two sided)

     

    4. Yahweh of the Bible or Allah of the Quran

     

    5. Corrupted or not – Quran and the Bible

     

    6. Trinity of the Bible or Tawheed of the Quran

     

    7. Islam or Christianity, which is the true religion of peace

     

    8. Jesus of the Bible or Muhammad of the Islam, which is the best example for humanity

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:12

    Ijaz Ahmad

    £5.

    * number 5

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:12

    Facebook User

    Or…Prophethood of Muhammad and Apostleship of Paul.

    ok

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:12

    Ijaz Ahmad

    As I said, I don’t do video, only audio.

    They can be on video, but I prefer to remain speaking only on audio.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:14

    Facebook User

    He only does video…..since on audio what usually occurs is one simply googles, researches, others can be feeding info as well as scripts are read.

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:14

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I only do audio for the sake of my identity.

    Those are his reasons for video only? LOL

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:15

    Facebook User

    Oh comeon, we are never commanded under the New Covenant never to harm anyone

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:15

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Sorry, all of my debates are audio only, no one knows my face, real name etc. I keep it that way because of my age as well.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:15

    Facebook User

    Anyone could debate on audio while others are feeding the answers one would simply read off

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:16

    Ijaz Ahmad

    You think being on video will prevent Sakshi members from not helping each other? You can see the person, not his computer screen. That’s some weird logic.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:17

    Facebook User

    Most well-known Muslim Apologists debate live even

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:17

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Most well known Muslim apologists don’t debate on Paltalk either

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:18

    Facebook User

    There is no need to live in fear, perhaps other Muslims will benefit from seeing your boldness and be encouraged to become an apologist for your faith as well

    Paltalk is simply a convenient forum for those in separate countries

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:18

    Ijaz Ahmad

    This is not about living in fear This is about keeping my life private and protecting my identity as a young adult from victimization in a Christian country.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:19

    Facebook User

    Are you speaking of India or Trinidad?

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:19

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Plus your logic doesn’t add up. Seeing the person isn’t what matters, because they could be on google and various other websites and you’d never know, because all you’re seeing is the person.

    Trinidad.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:21

    Facebook User

    Yes, but as we are able to view Deedat and Zakir Naik in person and one’s passion can really be felt as oppossed to reading emotionless

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:22

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Plus, in my experience, having two cams running at once, as well with voice chat on Paltalk deteriorates the connection horribly, hence why people normally go for audio.

    The bar is set, if Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and other well known Christian apologists can debate audio only as I do, I don’t see why Sakshi can’t.

    Too much fluff and little substance.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:23

    Facebook User

    I have some other forums we can use such as gotomeeting, or Skype Premium. Welll my dear, I must run now, but if you change your mind, please let me know and I will speak to him about this. Thank you so much for your consideration and may peace and blessings be upon you! Kindly, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    28/12/2012 20:24

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I’ve spent enough time discussing this, I have work to continue. Message me when you have something in concrete.

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:24

    Facebook User

    Thank you Ijaz!

  • Facebook User
    28/12/2012 20:44

    Facebook User

    Ijaz aside from the video debates, my friend also does face to face debates.

  • 29 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    29/12/2012 10:09

    Facebook User

    Ijaz, I discussed this possible debate with Sakshi, and they have never recd any debate invite from you. They have a strict debate criterion which you can see on http://www.sakshitimes.net/blog/2008/12/25/debate-invitation/. They receive many debate invites from boys high on enthusiasm but they typically back off when asked to send a profile. Anycase, if you can send me the correspondence that you sent them, I can ask them to cross check. Further to which I can ask them to respond to your email which you are supposed to have sent them earlier.

    This attachment may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it with you.
  • Ijaz Ahmad
    29/12/2012 10:11

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Clarify whether or not they’d be willing to an English debate, audio only before I send a request.

    I don’t want to send one and then be told that I began to back out.

  • 29 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    29/12/2012 18:25

    Facebook User

    Dear Ijaz, There were two parts to my email to which you replied to only one part… Sakshi frequently gets claims by wannabes claiming that Sakshi didn’t accept their debate challenge when nothing to that effect was ever extended. Please send me the correspondence which you claim to have been sent to Sakshi… I hope I don’t get the usual “I don’t store email”. They are pretty occupied with their work in India and are very particular about video being a part of the debate… perhaps you can “re-forward” your “earlier correspondence” and work hopefully work it out with them

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    29/12/2012 18:26

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Please see my previous message. I told you >> before << I send, to ask your friend if he would do a audio only debate, as I don’t want to send a proposal and then be accused of backing out.

  • 31 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    31/12/2012 09:44

    Facebook User

    Audio debate is out of the question. Sakshi has debated Dawah groups having a million plus members in a mosque boldly hanging up banners “Quran is not the word of God”, they went there without police protection and just about 20 supporters in the crowd… this in a country (India) which offers a fraction of protection of civil rights such as what you enjoy in the Trinidad… they boldly do their work without any human support or protection nor hiding behind the façade of the Internet… no time for juveniles who cannot stand up boldly for their faith even when they are given full state protection. Comeon Ijaz, you are not a Christian living in Muslim country with the possibility of Islamic death threats. Remember Christians do not have a 9:29 to obey. When Sami Zataari, Shabir Aly, Osama Abdallah, etc can openly criticize Christianity in a “Christian” country without any fear, then you also need to come out of the closet, reject the mythological “islamophobia” and debate openly as your leaders do. If not, do not use Taqiyya trying to gain footage by saying Sakshi won’t debate you. They will, but you must debate out of our closet man to man. Kindly, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    31/12/2012 10:48

    Ijaz Ahmad

    Hi there Kim!

    Well thank you for proving your stereotyping to be wrong, if Sakshi members among millions of Muslims, can insult them inside of a Masjid and come out with not even a scratch, then you’ve proven your lie of ‘death threats’ and ‘9:29 false interpretation’ to be wrong. Funny how proof by contradiction works, yes?

    Also, there is something you must know, I don’t have any pride, you can accuse me of being like Paul and using Taqiyya, you can accuse me of being scared, heck you can even accuse me of whatever you want, you’re not going to get a reaction from me. You’re a Christian, your motives are clear and your insincerity shines through the façade of ‘kindly organizing a debate’. Your last message clearly demonstrates your lowly intent.

    If Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers and even James White, from whom Sakshi steals most of their outdated information from can debate without video, then who does Sakshi think they are? The truth is, they are scared, and they will look for an excuse not to debate, they will create stringent rules and criteria just to make it impossible for a debate to happen

    When they are ready to grow up and don’t need their faces or names to be known for fame and donation money for their private use, let me know.

  • 31 December 2012
  • Facebook User
    31/12/2012 15:16

    Facebook User

    Dear Ijaz, Thanks for your mail. You still have not forwarded the debate invitation you claimed to have sent to Sakshi, when you stated above that you knew of them yet they would not debate with you.

    Perhaps Muslims cannot all be accused of obeying Surah 9:29. There are some like you who may follow Surah 43:88-89, Surah 109 and some may follow Surah 2:190-194 depending on their strength of population. So, it is very much an opportunistic ideology, depending upon one’s commitment to the Quran.

    Blessed Apostle Paul was not a follower of Muhammad to use Taqiyya “being like Paul and using Taqiyya” as you stated.

    Sam Shamoun, James White, etc do not have a closet hidden policy like you do. They may have debated without video due to technical constraints but they have also debated with video and in public square. Debates with Islamic stalwarts were all on video. With your “hide-behind the screen/veil” policy, how can one be sure of your true profile even? How can one be sure that you would not reappear with a changed name in a new website when you are thoroughly discredited in the debate?

    Anyways, we are speaking about Sakshi. They would want to debate with people who can boldly stand up for their own Religion. Why are you insisting on not having a video debate? When you grow up and can stand on your own and debate like a man, please let me know and I will arrange a debate for you with Sakshi.

  • Facebook User
    31/12/2012 15:20

    Facebook User

    Also, My comment about Sakshi debating in front of millions does not imply that the threat is not impending because as we all know fully well, in many countries precautions are often taking when debating live with Muslims such as metal detectors since Islam is the Religion of intolerance. Many have had looming threats from Muslims with the words of the Quran as justification, unlike the absence of any such words from the the New Testament words for the Dispensation of Grace. Kindly, Kim

  • Ijaz Ahmad
    31/12/2012 15:34

    Ijaz Ahmad

    I am sorry you have an overwhelming need to demean others when they do not bow to your whims and desires. You can speak whatever you wish of my religion, my God, my Prophet, you are a Christian, I don’t expect anything better from your ilk.

    You’ve wasted enough of my time Feel free to keep compensating for your own faith crisis by attacking Islam, it won’t change the reality before you.

You cannot reply to this conversation.

David Wood Fires Blanks

A recipe for disaster indeed! Moments after David Wood ran away after being called out on his spamming of a conversation between Pastor Samuel Green and I, he’s blocked me on Facebook. As you can see in the image provided, David began to spam a conversation because of a single comment I made in response to one of Samuel’s claims.

After much bravado, name calling, threats (to put me on his blog, been there; done that!), empty rhetoric and straw men, David decided to call a hasty retreat and shy away from facing me again – so he’s blocked me on Facebook! Isn’t this funny? David Wood enters into a conversation of which he’s not part of, spams it with 10’s of comments, insults me, tries to insult my God, tries to bait me into arguing with him, and he’s the one who ends up blocking me. That’s much like a robber who tries to hold you up with a gun, realises he’s firing blanks (an empty threat), and runs away!

That’s pretty much what happened. He showed up unannounced, attempted to get a reaction out of me by spamming and saying as much crude and crass things he could’ve conceived, and when he realised I wouldn’t give him what he wanted, the poor kid gave up. I almost feel sorry for him. All in all, David Wood has once again demonstrated that Christian polemicists are immature, infantile and irresponsible in their behaviour. In their haste to attack and disparage Islam, they are wholly unable to have a civilized conversation and must resort to brute force tactics, strong armed manoeuvres  and rabid ranting to face contemporary Muslim speakers.

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again, David and his team are not intellectuals, they are not familiar with educational discourse. They are thugs, who are using Islamophobia to gain donation monies for their own personal uses, while riding the Right-Wing Christian train for fame. Good riddance!

 

David Wood Cowers from Calling Christians

After facing heat for inventing false evidences, David Wood, seeing his partner in crime about to be embarrassed, rushed to Samuel’s aid. I posted one comment, questioning Samuel’s calling of a du’a, as a Surah (both him and I knowing full well this is an Orientalist claim and not a Muslim claim, we tend to know the difference between a du’a for blessing the recitation of the Qur’aan and a Surah). As you can see in the image below, David entered into a rabid frenzy, copy pasting every hadeeth he could find from Samuel’s ill written article:

cc-2014-davidwood-spamming

As you can see, for every one comment I make, he makes atleast five in return, finally towards the end he confesses he spammed me because of my questions towards Samuel Green. Interestingly, I asked David why he was misquoting ahadeeth and using incorrect translations. He decided to attack a straw man and claim I told him that he misquoted the da’eef (weak) hadeeth about the goat story from Ibn Majah.

I invited David to quote for me where I indicated that the goat story was the hadeeth I was referring to. After several loud mouthed claims, and a few snide remarks, he tucked his tail between his legs and forsook his crusade, realising that I never made that claim. Such is the ‘intellectual David Wood’, I asked one question, he got angry and spammed a conversation that had nothing to do with him. Realising he’d not be able to overwhelm me, or drag me into an insult match, he decided to invent a lie, and when called upon to qualify his claim, he ran off into the sunset – probably to try on more of his wife’s make up and underwear:

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

Sorry David, I enjoyed watching you panic and flee.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »