Video: Robert Spencer and Imam Bashir Abdul Haqq debate on “Did Muhammad exist?”

This debate was held on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network on the evening of January 10.

I want to thank Imam Bashir Abdul Haqq for sticking to the topic, and not spending his portion of the debate telling me how stupid and evil I am, in the manner of most of the Muslims I have debated. It seems to be a common debating tactic among Islamic supremacists to resort liberally to ad hominem attacks, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate and unnerve their opponents. Bashir Abdul Haqq was a refreshing departure from that all too frequently employed strategy.

Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on the jihad threats to the Sochi Winter Olympics
Video: Robert Spencer on Sun TV -- Molly Norris and Terry Loewen, two of the most neglected jihad stories of 2013
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    The early Christian accounts of the Arab invasions have no mention of the ‘Invitation to Islam’ or any mention of an Arab religion.

    We must assume, then, that the Arabs had no separate religion at the time of invasion. They were simply a tribe of bandits. They were not practicing the supposed rule of Mohammed to ‘call to Islam’ before attacking. They simply attacked and plundered.

  2. says

    Fascinating that practically no university-level teacher of Islam has the guts to debate Robert. Mullahs are scared spitless of losing their ‘honor’ to Robert by being defeated ignominiously. A London imam already admitted he could not debate Robert who is ‘an expert’.

    The imams cannot defend Islam and so they run from the exchange and leave the job to nobodies who won’t lose much face since they are insignificant.

  3. says

    As Alexander Pope said in his Essay on Criticism, “A little learning is a dangerous thing,/Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:/There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,/And drinking largely sobers us again.”

    Unfortunately, this self-taught imam is woefully unequipped to hold a serious debate with Robert. His mispronunciations of historical names and early writers is an indication that he has had no formal training in the areas that he is trying to discuss.

    Furthermore, he seems to be looking at some texts by other writers, and lifting or paraphrasing arguments that they are making, rather than using his own arguments based upon his own well of knowledge.

    One cannot use other sources or experts as the primary debaters in a contest such as this. The imam should have been able to draw upon his own considerable knowledge to consolidate and buttress his arguments, and not substitute the opinions of others more learned.

    The imam is not a scholar, nor has he done any original research in these matters, in my judgment. Instead, he simply parrots what other writers have said, and with a limited understanding, tries to use this to define his own position.

    This is sub-par contest. Robert should really be making an argument against more worthy opponents, such as John Esposito-like professors who at least have a command of the current scholarship. That would be a real debate.

    One more thought. The previous debate between Spencer and Wood vs. Sheikh Omar Bakri and Anjem Choudary was similarly execrable, in that the rational analysis of Spencer and Wood was enjoined only by the circular monkey-logic of the Muslim believers.

    This falls far short of being illuminating, since the Muslim side knows nothing of philosophy and the dictates of logic. The Muslims cannot respond with analytical argumentation, but only with religious dogma.

    It is a one-sided production. Surely there must be Muslim debaters (or Middle Eastern scholars) that have a more comprehensive, learned and nuanced understanding about Islam than these ham-and-eggers. Would Tariq Ramadan do?

  4. says

    Whether Muhammad existed or not – we can state to absolute certainty that Allah never existed.

    ALLAH AKA MUHAMMAD AKA ALLAH
    MUHAMMAD THE CREATOR OF ALLAH

    Following is free book: GOD OF MORAL PERFECTION available at http://www.godofmoralperfection.com

    WHY ALLAH IS NOT GOD
    WHY ISLAM IS FRAUDULENT

    WHY ISLAM IS A TOTAL RENUNCIATION OF GOD. THE GREATEST CRIME AND SIN EVER COMMITTED BY MAN AGAINST GOD

    A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢ VERSUS ALLAH (the ANTIGOD) of the Muslims.

    ONLY A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢ IS GOD
    THE DESTRUCTION OF ISLAM WITH JUST ONE WORD
    THE THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISLAM TO BE FROM GOD
    DECLARATION OF A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTION (Page 188)

    MANKIND HAS A CHOICE BETWEEN 2
    DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT GODS

    A GOD OF ALL PEACE, LOVE, MERCY AND GOODNESS (A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢) OR AN EVIL ALLAH (the ANTI GOD) OF EXTERMINATION, GENOCIDE, ASSASSINATION, MURDER, HATE, TERROR, TORTURE, BRUTALITY, SLAVERY, RAPE.

    AND 2 DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT PROPHETS

    JESUS VERSUS MUHAMMAD (Page 231)

    Jesus Christ was a true Prophet of peace and love, goodness and mercy. Prophet Muhammad was a true prophet of extermination, murder, slaughter, rape, terror, torture, hate, slavery, child molestation. These are crimes against humanity. These are crimes against God. Read The Crimes of Prophet Muhammad (Page 22).

    THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY/JUDAISM AND ISLAM. CHRISTIANS ARE SANCTIFIED BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST RECEIVED AT HOLY COMMUNION. MUSLIMS ARE SANCTIFIED BY THE BLOOD OF MURDERED KAFIRS GUARANTEEING ACCESSION TO A VIRGIN DELIGHT PARADISE

    GOD IS NOT A CRIMINAL.
    GOD IS NOT A MALE CHAUVINIST PIG. ONLY A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢ IS GOD.

    IF GOD KILLED OR ORDERED THE KILLING OF JUST ONE HUMAN BEING OR ANY OTHER CREATURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE OR COMMITTED ANY CRIMINAL ACT THEN GOD WOULD NO LONGER BE MORAL PERFECTION AND THEREFORE NO LONGER GOD. GOD WOULD NOT EXIST.

    ISLAM IS AN OBSCENITY AGAINST GOD – A TOTAL RENUNCIATION OF GOD. THE GREATEST CRIME AND SIN EVER COMMITTED BY MAN AGAINST GOD.

    The greatest crime against God is any act of violence: suicide bombings, extermination, murder, war, terror, torture and brutality against humans committed in the name of and to the greater glory of God. To kill in the name of and to the greater glory of God is such an abomination against God as to be unprintable. The second greatest crime against God is any act of violence against humans including the crimes of rape and slavery.

    EXCERPT FROM THE DECLARATION OF A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢ (Page 188) – “THE TOTAL EQUALITY OF WOMEN WITH MEN IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF THE MORAL PERFECTION OF GOD. ANY TEACHING PERTAINING TO BE FROM GOD THAT DEGRADES WOMEN, DENIGRATES THEM IN ANYWAY, CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE INFERIOR TO MEN IN ANY WAY, DENIES THEM THEIR RIGHT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES WITHOUT MALE SUPERVISION, THEIR RIGHT TO SAY NO TO THEIR HUSBAND’S SEXUAL DEMANDS, TREATS THEM AS PROPERTY, ALLOWS THEIR MURDER AS HONOR KILLING OR ANY OTHER REASON, FORCES THEM TO COVER THEMSELVES AGAINST THEIR WILL, DOESN’T ALLOW THEM TO WEAR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO WEAR ON THEIR FACE/BODIES, ALLOWS THEIR BEATING, ALLOWS THEIR LASHING/STONING, ALLOWS THEIR SEXUAL ABUSE/MOLESTATION, MURDERS THEM FOR HAVING NON MARTIAL SEX, MURDERS THEM FOR COMMITTING ADULTERY, FORCES THEM INTO MARRIAGE AGAINST THEIR WILL, ALLOWS CHILD GIRLS TO BE RAPED UNDER THE FRAUD OF MARRIAGE, ALLOWS WOMEN’S ENSLAVEMENT AS SEX SLAVES OR SLAVES, ALLOWS THEIR RAPING, ALLOWS SEX WITHOUT THE WOMAN’S FULL CONSENT, DENIES THEM THEIR RIGHT TO SEXUAL FREEDOM, DENIES THEM THEIR RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ARE NOT THE TEACHINGS OF A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTION BUT OF EVIL MAN/MEN. THE ENTIRE RELIGION CLAIMING SUCH TEACHINGS AS THE WORD OF GOD IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT. THE MEN WHO FOLLOW THIS RELIGION ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOWEST. DENYING 50% OF HUMANITYTHEIR HUMANITY – THE MOTHERS OF ALL MANKIND IS NOT THE ACTIONS OF MEN BUT OF ANIMALS.

    THREE REQUIREMENTS FOR ISLAM TO BE FROM GOD

    There are 3 requirements for Islam to be from God:

    1. Every word of the Quran must be Moral Perfection. If just one word is immoral then the Quran is not from God but from man and ALL Islam is fraudulent.

    2. God cannot have as his prophet – a criminal receiving divine teachings otherwise God is equally guilty in all the crimes committed by his prophet and therefore is no longer Moral Perfection and therefore no longer God. ALL Islam would be fraudulent.

    3. It is central to Islam that Sharia Law is the divine constitution of God. To be so EVERY teaching of Sharia Law must be Moral Perfection. If only one teaching is immoral then ALL Islam is fraudulent and not from God.

    4. DECLARATION OF A GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢ If God exists then only a GOD OF MORAL PERFECTIONâ„¢ is God. (See page 188)

    Quoting:

    “You cannot be a conqueror, warlord, leading armies into battle and be a prophet of God. You cannot be a conqueror, warlord, leading armies into battle and be a prophet of God receiving divine teachings from God. A prophet of God is the very essence of non -violence. All violence and war are abhorrent to God. A betrayal of God. A prophet must be the light leading humanity from the abyss of violence/war to a world of non violence not a military commander leading with a sword.

    If Muhammad committed just one of the criminal acts listed above let alone all of them, he would not be a prophet of God. We will now document the criminal acts of Muhammad and a number of his major military campaigns. Remember just as with the one word of immoral imperfection to negate the entire Quran as the word of God, we need only one criminal act committed by Muhammad – just one act of violence, just one act of leading or ordering or planning just one act of war to negate his prophethood.”

    WE WILL PROVE THAT THE QURAN WAS NOT THE WORD OF GOD BUT THE PRODUCT OF A PSYCHOTIC AND THAT PSYCHOTIC WAS PROPHET MUHAMMAD

  5. says

    Heavens above, it’s that brainless bint Rezali again!

    But Rezali, what about a comment on the program. Mr Spencer wiped the floor with his opponent. You could see the expression on his face in the last five minutes of the program becoming very thoughtful.
    I think it’s highly likely that many Muslims who listened to the broadcast are on the verge of dumping Islam. I mean, how can you follow a ‘prophet’ that never existed?!

    More later …. you clown!

  6. says

    While I think that Arabic coins from the first Muslim century marked with a cross and the ignorance of contemporary Christian observers of the Islamic conquest concerning an Islamic holy book are worthy of greater exploration, I am still convinced that Muhammad was a historical person. I have read _Did Muhammad Exist_, and congratulate our host on publishing a worthy defense of his position. Yet I must still admit myself one who remains fundamentally unconvinced.

    My guess is that earliest Islam was indeed shaped by a charismatic figure from the Hijaz named Muhammad, who is not better attested because he started as an obscure man in an obscure part of the world where the dominant culture was still largely pre-literate. This same Muhammad patched together a spiritual hash of Seventh-century Unitarian (surviving Arian or Ebionite influences?) and Gnostic Christianities, leavened it a bit with Arab tribal custom and fragments of Jewish Midrash, and fobbed it off as a new “revelation”. Maybe the fragments that Muhammad left and the lore about his teachings did not get compiled in a Qur’an until some time after his death. However, this doesn’t prove that Muhammad didn’t live and didn’t teach.

    BTW, I note that Patricia Crone, one of the founders of the Hagarism thesis, has come to accept the historicity of Muhammad.

    I have read _Did Muhammad Exist_, and congratulate our host on publishing a worthy defense of his position. Yet I must still admit myself one who remains fundamentally unconvinced.

    Similar problems exist in studying the origins of Christianity and the New Testament–and I am a confessing and practicing Christian. Jesus and his apostles began as rather ordinary middle class Jews whom very few of the great and noble deigned to notice. While I firmly believe that the New Testament is a lot earlier than critical scholarship allows (I’d date virtually all of it between roughly 35-62 A.D. on chiefly internal evidence), we nonetheless have it circulating among groups of people who are not in the mainstream of the Jewish, Greek, and Roman societies of their time, so it is understandable that there are few notices of them. Further, while our own era is excited by some 2d and 3d century Gnostic writings and apocryphal Gospels, my own guess is that for a lot of Christians of the time, the issue of canon was non-problematic simply because everyone knew what the apostles had written. When an Irenaeus of Lyons or Clement of Alexandria writes against the Gnostic gospels, he’s simply keeping out a novelty rather than determining canon.

    I suspect that a similar dynamic was at work among the earliest Muslims, who were themselves newcomers to civilized lands and, given the ghettoization of religious communities in the Middle East even before Islam, the Muslims’ failure to make the Christians of those times familiar with the Qur’an only suggests to me that you had conquerors keeping some social distance from the conquered.

  7. says

    As one or two of the responders have suggested, that so called “Muslim scholars” are far more Islamic than scholarly and as someone who was actually surprised that Mohammed’s existence was even an issue, I am now in “Camp Sceptical”

    Robert Spencer is very impressive and without doubt more credible than his opponent; however the real issue for me is whether of not God exists. After all, if as as seems to be the case, there is not a scrap of evidence for the existence of any god, what does it matter if Mohammed existed except from establishing historical accuracy!

  8. says

    The execrable rezali mehil’s hissing diatribe about “Abdullah” and “Slave of allah” is very revealing.

    It shows us that Slavery is one of the central and fundamental paradigms of Islam, “Submission”. At the core of Islam is a notion of Total Domination paired with a notion of Total Submission…which plays out in the sacralisation of slavery, rape, and murder.

    Islam’s ‘theology’ is one in which allah is a capricious, cruel, deceptive and wholly merciless oriental despot apotheosized; It (I will not dignify the thing with a personal pronoun, for the whole point is that It is not personal in any recognisable sense) does not love its terrified, cringing, grovelling slaves. It has no ‘partners’…it does not love nor make and keep promises.

    But those who think of themselves as Slaves of this horrible ‘allah’ then, by virtue of their Submission to Allah (their identification with ‘allah’) feel entitled to turn round and behave *like* It…toward anybody and anything weaker than themselves. And so one has the suspicion and aggression, the zero-sum mentality, that poison and warp all relationships, both within the Ummah, and between mohammedan mobsters and Infidels. One sees the wife-beating…and wife-killing, daughter-killing, child-murder. One sees the mass murderings, the mass torturings, the gang rapes, the consistently horrible treatment of dhimmis.

    No matter how abjectly the Dominated submit, and submit, and submit, the Abuser, the Dominator is just not satisfied, does not feel powerful enough, big enough, strong enough, enough like ‘allah’..not until the Dominated has been totally annulled, stripped of humanity, tormented, multiply abused, reduced to an object, and then to less than an object, smashed and thrown away.

    Hence the gross mutilations of corpses, the digging up of the dead, the eating of the dead, the rape of the dead, the desecrations of graves, the destruction and defiling of non-islamic sacred places, that are constantly recorded along the trail of Muslim jihadis throughout history. Because somehow they just can’t make their victims dead *enough*.

    Hence, too, the masking of the face. The jihad terroriser masks his face…because in a sense he does not *have* a face, any more than ‘allah’ has a face; he has committed ‘suicide’, he makes himself a faceless vehicle of the so-called will of allah. And the woman, she whom Biblical scripture describes as “a help meet’ (literally, in a curious expression, “a help opposing”, almost with the sense of ‘challenge’, a ‘confronter’, the vis a vis) is stripped of her personhood: masked, her face erased, her very form erased, and in the most Islamic places of all, erased from the public space.

    Islam is a slave system: top, bottom, all the way through, all the way down.

    It is slavery and enslavement turned into a cult, a ‘religion’. And it is, therefore, also, all about murder and lies and the hiding and the defacement of the face.

  9. says

    An enjoyable debate and one that stayed clear of Robert’s opponent calling him an ‘Islamophobe’. Still it was a bit like watching someone bring a rusty butter knife to a gunfight. This is too often the problem with those who have so much stake in their theology and tinted with inferences of racism.

    The imam entered the arguments with way too many pre-suppositions and so was not able to adequately challenge any aspect of skepticism regarding Muhammad’s existence. I also noted that the imam just didn’t seem to be familiar with certain vocabulary used in review of historical documents, such as often conflating the term ‘bigotry’ when he meant to say polemics. I’m not even sure he seemed aware that much of Islam’s earliest literature is highly polemical in nature.

    Also the way he tossed out the term ‘European’ in respect to his description of the Christian commentators during the 7th and 8th c CE seemed to infer some racist intent of the authors. The term ‘European’ would have had no meaning to folks of the time and further most of these Christian polemicists referred to were of Near East or North African origin and not ‘European’ as he charges. Being Byzantine subjects these writers would have naturally been part of the Greco-Roman culture that pervaded those regions, but it is egregious speculation to assume that John of Damascus or Sebeos (an 7th c. Armenian bishop) ever thought of themselves as Europeans or as a super pale-skinned, higher caste bigots. Haqq also has little grasp of how the Arabs of antiquity were viewed by others or by themselves.

    This race tinted line of thinking also continues when he clumsily attempts to use the events of the Atlantic Slave Trade as analogy to the polemical writings against the 7th c CE Arab invaders. The Atlantic Slave Trade has nothing to do with the topic, but I can only speculate that it was another attempt to inject racist European ideology as a strange parry to the question at hand. If Haqq wanted to open that can of worms, he should have admitted that those slaves were captured and sold by Muslims to Europeans and that the Arabs themselves engaged in the abominable sub Saharan African slave trade for well over a millenium. That said, I don’t think Haqq was rude or deliberate in his racism inferences, but likely baggage all too common to African American converts to Islam. The new culture they adopt (Arab) with the religion becomes immune from any criticism and blame for all racism lay only at the feat of White Europeans (and all Christians by extension).

    Overall the debate is about as good as it will get with a committed Muslim on one side. Kudos to Robert on another great display of knowledge and presentation.

  10. says

    prman wrote:

    One more thought. The previous debate between Spencer and Wood vs. Sheikh Omar Bakri and Anjem Choudary was similarly execrable, in that the rational analysis of Spencer and Wood was enjoined only by the circular monkey-logic of the Muslim believers.

    This falls far short of being illuminating, since the Muslim side knows nothing of philosophy and the dictates of logic. The Muslims cannot respond with analytical argumentation, but only with religious dogma…
    ……………………….

    With respect, prman, I believe that this is *quite* illuminating. Robert Spencer is not turning down debates with more serious Muslim scholars”this is the best that Islam has to offer.

    Pious Muslims despise rational thought, and have never believed that they need defend Islam using reason”most of them far prefer circular reference back to the texts of Islam itself, and if that fails, there’s always recourse to death threats…

  11. says

    and then the early Islamic Coins with a Cross…hmm…makes me wonder, Were they making reference to Jesus?

    No the coin is not islamic it is a Byzantine, Heraclius. 610-641 (probably struck 612/613 AD).

    Solid Gold Solidus of Jerusalem, with heads of Heraclius and Heraclius Constantine

  12. says

    Well excuse me ….if you don’t have respect for your prophets…than that is your lookout.

    YOur prophet made you who you are ….I am astounded you peoples show such an air of superiority….it’s shameful….be humble …be a slave …let Abdullah be your mindset.

    More Later….

    Rezali

  13. says

    be a slave …let Abdullah be your mindset.
    ———————————————————————
    I am a slave to no one; and who the hell is abdullala, I thought we were talking about muhamMUD.
    A devout Arab Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.
    The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door. The Arab Muslim asked him, “What are you doing? The cabbie answered, “In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so f–k off and wait for a camel!”

  14. says

    The ludicrous Rezali Mehil wrote:

    Well excuse me ….if you don’t have respect for your prophets…than that is your lookout.

    YOur prophet made you who you are ….I am astounded you peoples show such an air of superiority….it’s shameful….be humble …be a slave …let Abdullah be your mindset.
    ……………………………….

    Because Rezali Mehil only believes in Muslim supremacism. So sorry”we don;t believe in slavery, and worled long and hard to abolish it. Not you and you appalling coreligionists, of course.

    And notice that Rezali Mehil doesn’t even bother to address the story itself. And why should she? Like all pious Muslims, rational debate is *not* her strong suit.

    More, to Jessie James:

    Hello Jessie,

    I can excuse your ignorance – you are after all just an american.
    …………………………………..

    There’s more of that groundless sense of Muslim supremacism…

    More:

    FYI, “Abdullah” is an Arabic theophoric name meaning “Servant of Allah” SWT.

    So when I say “let Abdullah be your mindset”….

    it means that the “before life”, the “time when you are born to the time when you die”, the “after life” – forever …forever think slave – act slave – talk slave ….but only of Allah SWT.
    …………………………………..

    Jessie James made it quite clear that he was aware of you “slave of Allah” reference, and responded, essentially, with “Nuts!”, which is a historic American saying.

    More:

    I hope this clarifies it for you and for Bettina who is about to have new Muslim neighbors…new “Abdullahs” walking the same streets – so to speak.
    …………………………………..

    And here she is, threatening again.

    And still no reference to Robert Spencer wiping the floor with this Muslim “scholar””but then, I really didn’t expect her to acknowledge it…

  15. says

    Hello Jessie,

    I can excuse your ignorance – you are after all just an american.

    FYI, “Abdullah” is an Arabic theophoric name meaning “Servant of Allah” SWT.

    So when I say “let Abdullah be your mindset”….

    it means that the “before life”, the “time when you are born to the time when you die”, the “after life” – forever …forever think slave – act slave – talk slave ….but only of Allah SWT.

    I hope this clarifies it for you and for Bettina who is about to have new Muslim neighbors…new “Abdullahs” walking the same streets – so to speak.

    More Later…..

    Rezali

  16. says

    rezali is of course WRONG about allah …

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Allah is NOT the God of the Bible”

    Excerpt:

    Muslims believe that there is no other God besides Allah and that he is the God of the universe. They claim that not only is he their God, but that he is the God of the Jews, the Christians and everyone else. When examining the profile of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and comparing it with Allah’s profile, there are a number of distinct differences between them that can only result in one conclusion: These profiles simply do not match! Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!

    The Islamic faith, through the teachings of Muhammad, asserts that Allah is God and attempt to place him within the confines of the Holy Scriptures. When the Bible contradicts their teachings, they allege that it is flawed, has been tampered with, and has many errors. They further claim that the Koran, through the teachings of their prophet Muhammad, corrects them. However, it has already been established that Muhammad was both a false prophet and teacher. Therefore, Islam’s allegations are unsupported, baseless and without merit.

    There are a number of major differences between the God of the Bible and Allah. This chapter will focus upon five reasons why they are not the same. According to the Holy Scriptures, the God of the Bible is the one true God while Allah is a false god.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The link below lists *5* main topics:

    1. God’s Begotten Son

    2. The Godhead, or Trinity

    3. The Crucifixion

    4. The God of the Bible Condemns Muhammad

    5. The God of the Bible Rejects Allah

    http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html

  17. says

    SWT means small weenie tosser, right?

    Robert, why don’t you have a debate with Muhammad al Hussaini? He was commenting in this forum about half a year ago and he is an incredibly well-read and intelligent person. His koran exegesis is very interesting and the debate will not be a confrontation but a learned discussion. We would all learn a lot from two honest scholars exchanging views. You would tremendously enjoy it.

  18. says

    forever think slave – act slave – talk slave ….but only of Allah SWT.
    ———————————————————————–
    thanks for the clarification Rezali; I assume that allah SWT means Slut Whore Twat? Some people are a slave to sex, gambling, achohol, cigarettes, porn, islam and all those other nasty things but thank God I’m free from them all!!

  19. says

    Jessie James made it quite clear that he was aware of you “slave of Allah” reference, and responded, essentially, with “Nuts!”,
    —————————————————————————
    Dear Graven……..”Nuts!”……now that’s funny right there!

  20. says

    Scorpio wrote:

    Robert Spencer is very impressive and without doubt more credible than his opponent; however the real issue for me is whether of not God exists. After all, if as as seems to be the case, there is not a scrap of evidence for the existence of any god, what does it matter if Mohammed existed except from establishing historical accuracy!
    …………………………………

    Historical accuracy is very important, Scorpio”but I believe there is an even more important point here.

    In the free West, *everything* can be questioned. Including the nature”or historical existence”of religious figures. There have been endless studies of Moses, Jesus, and Gautama Buddha”and yet, surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly) of the “Prophet” Muhammed.

    There had been some Western studies of him and his life, but they were all based on the texts of Islam themselves.

    Robert Spencer did not start of to disprove the existence of the historical Muhammed, and was initially rather surprised to find so little supporting evidence for his existence from other sources. And note: his book is not titled, “Mohammad Didn’t Exist”, but just poses the reasonable question, “Did Mohammad Exist?”

    Under Shari’ah law, *no one*”Infidels least of all”are allowed to question *anything* about the “Prophet” of Islam.

    Part of what is so important is our just asserting that we are free to pose the question’to ask what sort of figure the “Prophet” was, and to question whether he was a confirmed historic individual, perhaps some sort of conflation of local war lords, or whether he was made up out of whole cloth as much as a century and a half after he was supposed to have lived.

    I realize that it is often a truism to say that asking the question is as important as the answer”but in this instance I believe that it is quite literally the case.

  21. says

    Dumbledore’s Army wrote:

    The execrable rezali mehil’s hissing diatribe about “Abdullah” and “Slave of allah” is very revealing.

    It shows us that Slavery is one of the central and fundamental paradigms of Islam, “Submission”….
    ………………………………….

    **Excellent** piece on the centralness of slavery in every aspect of Islam, Dumbldore’s Army. I’m going to keep it.

  22. says

    Your conclusions are on point. However, my suggestion is to try to schedule debates with Islamic proponents (or apologists) that have some academic credentials (like a John Esposito) rather than rely on imam-types. Otherwise, the debates are really kind of useless.