Tag Archives: debate

Debate Review: Is the Trinity Polytheism? Shadid Lewis vs Anthony Rogers

Posted on by Leave a comment

Update: Sent this debate review to Anthony himself. If he responds or comments, I’ll post it here, if not, then his silence will speak volumes.

Update #2: As of 7:20 pm both his and my time, he viewed my message, no response as yet.

Opening Statements:

I’m not sure Anthony knew what debate he was showing up to, I sat with Sami Zataari and we took in Anthony’s opening together, our impressions were the same. Anthony most likely misunderstood the topic of the debate, this doesn’t mean that his contribution wasn’t meaningful, nor does it mean that he didn’t argue well, but what he did argue was largely irrelevant to the debate’s topic. I mean, if the debate topic was perhaps one of the few below, his points and evidences would have been relevant:

  • Is the Trinity in the Bible?
  • Are Christians Polytheists According to the Qur’aan?
  • Does the Islamic View of the Trinity Reconcile with that of the Bible’s?

Unfortunately for Mr. Rogers, the topic was not centered on what either the Qur’aan says, or what the Bible says, and this is key to both debaters’ arguments. I’ve debated Anthony before, and he suffers from the same weaknesses that he’s been unable to grow out of. He’s largely very verbose and his comments are usually irrelevant, it’s as if he’s puffing up his statements to get a few jabs in, but they’re largely not contributing to the topic. He also has a intellectual disability whereas, he’s unable to mature or think outside of his articles, for the greater portion of his opening sermon, you’d have bet he was reading from his, “The Trinity in the Old Testament” article which I cited in my recent article, here.

Positives for Anthony would be that he spoke with a lot of confidence, there’s no denying that he’s a talented orator, Shadid on the other hand not so much, but this doesn’t count for much beyond appearances, we’re looking at the arguments, the content and the logic presented.

Br. Shadid did something quite surprising, he didn’t take Anthony’s bait. In my recent debate review between him and Robert Spencer, I criticised him for furthering Spencer’s irrelevant arguments, arguing away from the topic. Not sure if he took my criticism to heart, or if he upped the ante in his debate with Anthony, but both Sami and I were quite pleased to see him stick to the topic, define the topic and to attack the topic from the get go. Whereas Anthony spent a lot of time focusing on what the Qur’aan considers the Christians to be, he spent almost 3/4 of his opening statement’s time on this, Br. Shadid went straight to the philosophical and rational theological reasons for why the Trinity is polytheistic in nature. He did mention a few Bible verses to support his claims, but for the better part of his opening statement, he focused on the logical and philosophical nature of the Trinity in light of general monotheism.

As mentioned previously, his speaking style leaves a lot to be desired, but that did not detract from his arguments. To my surprise, he stood his ground and waited for the rebuttal period to criticise his opponent’s deceits. He did not give in to Anthony’s emotional jabs and he kept his statements quite professional. I’d like to think that Anthony tried to get a rise out of Br. Shadid by mentioning that at the end of the debate he’d have to surrender his Qur’aan, kudos to Br. Shadid for disarming Anthony’s ridiculous emotional jab.

Rebuttals:

Anthony replied to all of Br. Shadid’s points, but it seems he still didn’t understand the topic well, or seem to realise this was the rebuttal period as he continued to speak on what the Qur’aan considers Christians to be. I hope that for the other debates he has with Shadid that he can atleast improve on sticking to the format of the debate, if I were supporting him, I’d be quite embarrassed to see a so-called Christian Apologist, lack any sense of relevance to the debate topic, while seeing him make crass and unprofessional statements about his opponent’s scripture. He did provide a lot of solid points against Br. Shadid’s arguments, but during this period, he still never actually conveyed how the Trinity is monotheistic, to be quite honest, I don’t think he spent any time at all discussing this point – which should have been his mainstay.

As for Br. Shadid, he did provide convincing rebuttals to Anthony’s filibustering, their counter-arguments seemed to be on par, but Br. Shadid did seem to have the stronger outcome here, as he stuck to the topic and focused on his premises, how can Jesus Christ have a God, how can Jesus pray to God, how can Paul claim to see Jesus sitting to the right hand of God – then who is Jesus in this case, etc. Anthony did not provide a response to these points, but focused on Br. Shadid’s quotes, largely ignoring the theological/ Christological components of Shadid’s points and instead focused on their exegetical applications – showing once again that Anthony clearly missed the mark and that he failed to grasp the topic of the debate fully.

Conclusions:

I was quite insulted by Anthony’s closing statements, as it failed to be relevant at all to the debate topic and I must congratulate Br. Shadid on labeling it as an unwanted sermon. It seemed more like preaching, than a discussion on Br. Shadid’s points. Closing statements are not meant to be sermons, it is not meant to be a time to preach to the audience, and I was greatly turned off by his indecency, to me it felt as if Anthony was not prepared for, or he did not care about this debate and used it as a stage to stroke his ego and to preach to Christians, as opposed to have an academic discussion on the theological implications of the Trinity.

For me, this is where Br. Shadid clearly won, he didn’t give us a Khutbah – Islamic sermon, he honed in his points, qualified his premises and criticised Anthony’s improper, indecent and unqualified sermon, as opposed to doing a closing statement, as should have been given. He capped off his arguments and asked the audience to decide for themselves what the truth about the Trinity was. This debate by Br. Shadid was much better, much more classier and professional than his debate with Spencer. As for Anthony on the other hand, he did not seem prepared, and he chose to ignore the topic, I actually feel quite sorry for him given the mess that he caused – perhaps in this way he’s enlightened many Christians and drove them to doubt the Trinity, atleast that is what I conclude from his behaviour on that night.

and Allaah knows best.

Debate Review: Is Islam a Religion of Peace [Br. Shadid Lewis vs Robert Spencer]

Posted on by 2 comments

Note: This review is based on the video posted by Br. Shadid on his YouTube page. He has stated that his rebuttal and portions of the cross fire questioning are missing. Regardless of what is missing, this is a review on the debate ‘as it is’. 

Opening Statements:

Br. Shadid:

He begins by defining the delimits of the topic. What exactly is peace and how does Islam relate to it? What is the definition of peace which Mr. Spencer is operating with? From the very start, Br. Shadid is laying his logic clearly on the table. Merely asking, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?“, does not allow for the topic to be discussed. Is peace here supposed to mean pacifism? Outlined and strategical aggression? Interpersonal or between state and citizens of the state?

He doesn’t exactly convey his point very eloquently, nor does he stick to his line of reasoning perfectly. At the beginning he jumps around a bit after providing a dictionary definition of peace, and comments on the previous speakers before him (mind you who were not part of the debate), and then he comments on Arab Nation spending on weapons, versus that of America’s Military Industrial Complex. Unfortunately,  all of these topics in less than two minutes, muddled his opening statement.

He recovers though and makes quite the point. The so called Axis of Evil of nations, some of which are Muslim majority – have a total weapons and defense expenditure of $15 billion dollars combined, whereas the United States alone has a budget of $800+ billion dollars for the very same purpose. Even if Muslims did have goals of war – their expenditure simply does not allow for, or demonstrate this. He then moved on to proving that Islam does promote peace, on the basis of one the dictionary definitions of peace which he provided earlier. Somehow a few comments about taqiyyah got jumbled in there by him – which again, muddied the waters, taking away from what could have been a clear and consistent message.

Despite disrupting his outlined flow on the topic of Islam and Peace, Br. Shadid did present a solid rebuttal to the place of, and the use of taqiyyah in Islam. He then stops working with the four definitions of peace, and now discusses the place of abrogation of the peaceful verses of the Qur’aan. The flow of his argument (both overarching and sequentially) is very disruptive and a bit all over the place.

Br. Shadid discusses the validity of the translation of some verses, provides his reasoning on the exegetical sciences and then rests on the verses which clearly outline the conditions for warfare in the Qur’aan, specifically those of Qur’aan 2:190-194.  He then returned to one of the four definitions of peace, indicating that Islam does allow for peace treaties and this therefore fulfills another one of the definitions given. Cleverly, knowing that Mr. Spencer would eventually comment on the jizya and subjugation, Br. Shadid does sneak it in that even the polytheists of Makkah in the treaty of Hudaibiyah were not subject to the tax or monetary tribute. Br. Shadid in the closing moments then states that Islam is not a faith of pacifism.

Robert Spencer:

He began by saying that his statements would be solely based on Islamic source texts, written by Islamic scholarship, therefore his statements would be credible and seemingly unbiased. Spencer though, begins with his foot in his mouth by quoting one of the members of the Taliban who indicates that Jihad is recommended. Mr. Spencer says this, despite the fact that the Taliban’s fight is against Christian American soldiers invading a Muslim country. For those with a bit more awareness, his first point of contention aided Br. Shadid’s opening statement concerning Christian Americans and their war machine.

Spencer then quotes 2 or 3 other Jihadists, to bolster his position, despite these cases being few – he then mentions one of the Jihadists who claims his acts are in response to American war tactics and incidents. Once again, taking away from his position and aiding Br. Shadid’s. Spencer asks, where did these Jihadists get this understanding of Islam from, in this occasion, he paints them as students of knowledge – despite a significant majority of the exemplars used having no Islamic certification in any area of Islamic study. He quotes a Qur’aanic ayah and then mentions that he will abide by what Mr. Lewis suggests and that he’d appeal to a scholar on understanding the verse. In this regard, he chose Maulana Moududi (d. 1979) whom he says teaches that Muslims must usurp political power from any and all non-Muslim led nations.

Spencer then claims to agree with Br. Shadid that we cannot judge a faith based on what its members do, but based on what the faith itself teaches. He then goes to Maulana Moududi’s commentary on Qur’aan 3:28 – on the topic of taqiyyah, he agrees that one of its uses is during a state of persecution or imminent danger. His logic is therefore, that since Muslims claim America is at war with them, they are therefore in danger and currently must use taqiyyah at all times. Br. Shadid already specified what the circumstances were using a graphic retelling of a Grey’s Anatomy episode, thereby cancelling Robert’s misuse of reasoning. On abrogation he agrees that Muslims do not have a set agreement on how many verses have been abrogated. At this point the camera cuts off and begins towards the end of his rebuttal to Br. Shadid.

Rebuttals:

Br. Shadid’s was cut by the camera and as such I am unable to comment on it.

Mr. Spencer says that non-Muslims are not compelled to believe in Islam, but they must live in humiliation and subjugation. He then cuts across to rebutting Br. Shadid on peace treaties by quoting from the fiqh manual, Reliance of the Traveller – his quotes entail that warfare is prescribed and that scholars accept and promote this book thereby promoting warfare. He goes on to say that Muslims only accept peace treaties so that they can regroup and gather themselves for when the truce ends (traditionally, all nations at war do this, claiming that Muslims alone do this is very silly).

My Conclusions:

Seeing as I’m unable to see Br. Shadid’s rebuttal, I’m unable to declare either him or Mr. Spencer the true ‘winner’. However, given what I have seen and heard, Br. Shadid did stand his ground and he did successfully pre-empt the arguments of Mr. Spencer. To his benefit, Br. Shadid disarmed Spencer from using his usual arguments and seemed to make Spencer quite subdued in his argumentation.

Br. Shadid however, did jump around a bit, but despite doing so – when he made a point, he was consistent, clear and delivered very strong points which rendered a majority of Spencer’s points moot. It is with great earnest that I look forward to seeing the final 5 minutes of Spencer’s opening statement and the entirety of his and Br. Shadid’s rebuttals.

However, given what I’ve seen, and without bias, Br. Shadid did put a muzzle on Spencer’s arguments leaving Spencer to argue a bit aimlessly and with his tail between his legs. I do admit, that I am disappointed that Br. Shadid was all over the place, but in the very short time of his opening statement, he covered every single topic Spencer could have brought forward (something which Spencer did commend him for during his opening statement), thus pre-empting a majority of his arguments and placing the upper hand in his favour.

As far as I can tell, if Spencer’s opening statement and partial rebuttal are anything to judge by, despite his oratory skills, he has not defeated Br. Shadid.

and Allaah knows best.

The Shamounian Backlash

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The fireworks have begun. I’d like to thank Br. Paul Bilal Williams for resposting the article on his blog, and I’d also like to thank Br. Yahya Snow (the guy who makes those hilarious videos exposing Shamoun) for also reposting it on his blog. Sam Shamoun has reacted badly, quite badly to my article about his behaviour. So badly in fact, he proved the point that I was trying to demonstrate with the article itself – that he is an out of control, foul mouthed, abusive individual. When the article was posted to Br. Yahya’s blog, Sam Shamoun and his cheerleading friend, Radical Moderate (whom I’ve embarrassed here, see his homosexual rape threats here) began to incessantly spam his blog, causing Br. Yahya to remove many abusive and threatening statements:

(Note: click image to zoom in)

Blogger The Facts About Islam - Post a Comment (1)

Sam Shamoun and Radical Moderate left so many lewd, abusive and threatening comments, that the only comment that is safe enough for children to read, is where he calls me a spineless coward and that he’s humiliating me. Last I checked, Sam Shamoun is the one is has been unable to respond to any of my articles refuting his lies – not a single response – with that I ask, who truly is the spineless coward?

To make it worse, Sam issued a threat on Br. Paul’s blog:

Now you better go into damage control before we post something on answering muslims exposing your lies and slander even further.

Why has he written this? He’s written it because of a clarification email he’s posted on Br. Paul’s blog concerning the Canada catastrophe:

Dear Mr. Shamoun

Thanks for the message. I sent the following to George below. Just now

Dear George

I am sorry but I think that my original hopes of sharing food and having a discussion has changed drastically.

I have had a relationship with Neil Bullock and I was never under the impression that this was a serious debate.

Our center fits approx. 50 people and is used for bridge building.

Our main goal is not to convert people and I don’t like either side feeling uncomfortable.

The speakers that I have are not comfortable with Sam Shamoun. I have never heard of the man before this debate (shows that I’m not in the circuit).

I think its in the best interest of all to cancel unless is was more about breaking bread than the debate.

In the future please let me know the speakers or it makes it hard to frame the event appropriately.

I love people and wish to find common ground as much as possible.

My apologies

Thanks and God Bless

What Sham fails to realise is that I’ve seen this email before – I’m privy to a lot more than he thinks – I’d leave him to ponder on that for a moment or two. It’s probably news to Sham, but what I said in my original expose on him, isn’t refuted by the email, according to the email the organizers did want to pull out because of his presence, that’s exactly what I said:

 Very recently a group of Christians led by Pastor G. Saieg had to secretly set up a dialogue with Muslims in Toronto, Canada. They refused to say that Shamoun was accompanying them. The night before the event, they revealed his participation and the organizers pulled out. It is not because they are afraid of him, but they wish not to have a foul mouthed individual share a stage with them.

Ironically enough, the dialogue did happen, without Shamoun, thereby implicitly accepting that he is not an individual that is needed or one which they cannot do without – he is just as dispensable to the Muslim community as he is to the Christian community.

What’s in the above two paragraphs that’s a lie Shamoun? From the Facebook event page itself, it says that the mystery Christian debator was to stay a secret, isn’t that mystery representative you?

The Paradise Forever group representing the Islamic position. The Christian representative will be a surprise until the day of the event, but the one thing I am allowed to say about him is that he is someone who you will want to meet if you have any interest at all in the area of Christian-Muslim discussion.

To which Shamoun himself became upset when they sent the email stating his presence was not conducive to the inter-faith discussion:

9 Sam Shamoun

The only lie, can be Shamoun’s statement about what I said was not true, for his own Facebook page’s comment and the event page itself, both testify to what I say, even the email which he assumed I’d never seen before – also qualifies my statements. What’s worse is Sham’s lying to his fans, the event went on without him, I even have the photos of it!

Sam, your reaction was expected, and I have no problem with you threatening me, for as the servant of God – Christ was persecuted by the followers of Satan (see John 8:44-48), we Muslims, also expect to be persecuted, threatened and abused by you. Save the rhetoric for someone who gives a damn about what you say – that sure as hell, isn’t me.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Quick Tip for Talking with Missionaries

Posted on by 4 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Despite having been in this arena for a few years, I’m always finding new ways to interact with anti-Islamic polemicists. While attending a conference yesterday, I came across some invaluable advice in a book I’ve enjoyed reading for sometime (“How to Read a Book”, by Mortimer J. Adler). Many Ulama have recommended this book and I’m quite happy they did, it’s been very informative and extremely enlightening, it’s worth significantly more than you’d ever pay for it.

When we dialogue with missionaries, or conservative groups (EDL, BNP etc), sometimes even atheists, we find them claiming things of Islam that we don’t necessarily believe. Case in point, “Muslims worship a moon God“. As a Muslim, I’ve never been told to worship the moon, nor has Allaah ever been described as the moon, nor was the moon taught to me as being a deity. In fact, the Qur’aan directly speaks against anyone worshipping the sun or the moon:

“And the night, and the day, and the sun, and the moon are among His signs; do not prostrate for the sun or the moon, but prostrate for Allah Who has created them, if you are His bondmen.” – Qur’aan 41:37.

So, what should we do when we’re faced with someone who is claiming that Muslims believe X, when in reality we believe in….not X (let X be any arbitrary argument about Islamic belief – moon God, Injil is Bible etc)? It’s simple, you as the Muslim must declare: This is now what Islam teaches and as a Muslim, this is not what I believe. From this, we can take Mortimer’s advice, he says:

You yourself may remember an occasion where someone said to a speaker, in one breath or at most two, “I don’t know what you mean, but I think you’re wrong.” There is actually no point in answering critics of this sort. The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position for you, the position they claim to be challenging. If they cannot do it satisfactorily, if they cannot repeat what you have said in their own words, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms. They are irrelevant, as all criticism must be that is not based on understanding. – How to Read a Book, Mortimer J. Adler, Page 97.

In sum:

  1. Opponent makes claim.
  2. If this is not what we as Muslims believe, declare this to your opponent, clarify what we actually do believe.
  3. He will say you’re wrong (he will deny your declaration).
  4. Ask him to explain to you what you said you believed.
  5. If he can’t or refuses to, then his criticism is unfounded, as what he is attacking, has no basis in our deen.

It’s simple, but pure genius. How can you expect to carry on an intelligent and worthwhile discussion with someone who claims to understand your beliefs, but cannot accurately express them to you? Such a person is pretending to have knowledge that they do not have and you should inform them of their lack of knowledge and decorum.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

 

Debate: Was Muhammad (peace be upon him) Foretold in the Bible? Zakir Hussein vs Samuel Green

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Another excellent debate from the up and coming debater, Br. Zakir Hussein. Eloquent in his speech, spot on in his arguments, well articulated rebuttals and most importantly he stayed on topic. Samuel Green attempted to refute him a few times, but got carried away, you’ll notice that Br. Zakir played a bit of logic on Samuel and used the same method of finding prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament and applied it to his own agenda. Thereby allowing Samuel to argue against his own methodology, pure brilliance from Br. Zakir.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Jesus in Christianity and Islam: Rowan Williams and Paul Williams

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A few days ago our esteemed Br. Paul Bilal Williams and Lord Rowan Williams had a discussion (I must emphasize that this was not a debate) on the topic of Jesus in Islam and Christianity. The intention of the discussion was to unite Muslims and Christians on a common, positive and good understanding of Jesus the Christ. Worth the watch simply because of the two names involved!

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »