Oh man, Naik is a chronic liar and you are really pretending that other people, people who would easily refute you (and have), need to clean up their act to debate him. My goodness, can you be that thick?
I think you should write a post entitled: "Is Yahya Snow Capable of Debating". Most of us know that you are not only not capable, you are positively too scared to do so.
This is what I posted on AM concerning their vid about Zakir in which they accuse him of making errors about Darwin etc. Since we now that Dave and his minoions regularly censor comments challenging their errors, I thought it might be a good idea to post it here as well as a sort of insurance.
Wow you guys are really amazing. Last time I checked Naik is a human being, capable of making mistakes. The errors you found don't even pertain to the Bible. You guys are really desperate. I found a few faults in your presentation. First of all the Church did supress scientific ideas that went against church doctrine. For instance, Galileo was ordered to stand trial for heresy. Copernicus' theories were banned by the Church. Newton was not a devoted believer of the Bible, in fact he rejected the divinity of Christ. Get your facts straight before you accuse someone else of making mistakes.
Yahya still lying and saying that Sam Shamoun that Muslims are a cancer on society lol.
Loopy
He made how many errors in how many seconds? I mean I can see making a mistake here and ther, but this guy just gets on a roll and its one mistake after another.
Dr white made a mistake in the debate with Shabir Alley years ago, he quoted a source as a primary when really it was a secondary.
But Muslims to this day bring that up and say "See Dr White is a Liar" lol
Wow!! You are still defending your high priest of shamonian despite him being caught stating 'muslims are a cancer to society'? You are truly a loyal foot soldier for the cult of shamonian.
Another beauty : your 'bullpenn hammer on father's head', woods , tried to pull a fast one that the Quran requires 4 witnesses for rape. Can you provide the verse? Logically , will there even be rape if there are 4 righteous witnesses?
Are shamonians like you able to think clearly? Oops ... time of the month for your donation to the cult of shamonian.
Not sure about the four witnesses busines, but the following reasoning is attrocious:
"Another beauty : your 'bullpenn hammer on father's head', woods , tried to pull a fast one that the Quran requires 4 witnesses for rape. Can you provide the verse? Logically , will there even be rape if there are 4 righteous witnesses?"
I imagine that those who bring up the idea that four witnesses are required to prove rape don't believe the Qur'an to be the word of God or that it is perfectly logical and consistent, in which case when you ask rhetorically if we could ever logically expect for their to be a rape in front of four righteous witnesses you are simply engaging in circular reasoning to defend the Qur'an. If the Qur'an (or Sunnah) do not require such a thing, then this is where you should leave the argument. Please don't try to reason, you will only get yourself in trouble and make Muslims look bad.
As for the ad hominem on David Wood, this sort of thing constantly repeated by Muslims is a real turn off. It solidifies in our thinking that Islam is a religion of condemnation and no real forgiveness. According to Christianity, when a person comes to Christ in repentance and faith, his/her sins are forgiven. Of course Muslims don't believe what the prophets or Jesus or the apostles taught about the person and work of the Messiah, but surely you can at least understand that David's prior lifestyle does not mitigate his being a forgiven and changed individual today and someone who can be basically trusted. In other words, when you bring this sort of thing up in order to discredit the arguments of Christians, you are once again begging the question and making Muslims look stupid.
Oh well, I guess it is a habit for some people. Cheers.
Sorry for the typos, let me do this again (unfortunately I can't erase it).
Not sure about the four witnesses busines, but the following reasoning is attrocious:
"Another beauty : your 'bullpenn hammer on father's head', woods , tried to pull a fast one that the Quran requires 4 witnesses for rape. Can you provide the verse? Logically , will there even be rape if there are 4 righteous witnesses?"
I imagine that those who bring up the idea that four witnesses are required to prove rape don't believe the Qur'an to be the word of God or that it is perfectly logical and consistent, in which case when you ask rhetorically if we could ever logically expect for their to be a rape in front of four righteous witnesses you are simply engaging in circular reasoning to defend the Qur'an. If the Qur'an (or Sunnah) does not require such a thing, then this is where you should leave the argument. Please don't try to reason, you will only get yourself in trouble and make Muslims look bad.
As for the ad hominem on David Wood, this sort of thing constantly repeated by Muslims is a real turn off. It solidifies in our thinking that Islam is a religion of condemnation and no real forgiveness. According to Christianity, when a person comes to Christ in repentance and faith, his/her sins are forgiven. Of course Muslims don't believe what the prophets or Jesus or the apostles taught about the person and work of the Messiah, but surely you can at least understand that David's prior lifestyle does not mitigate his being a forgiven and changed individual today and someone who can be basically trusted according to Christianity. In other words, when you bring this sort of thing up in order to discredit the arguments of Christians, you are once again begging the question and making Muslims look stupid.
Oh well, I guess it is a habit for some people. Cheers.
Naik shouldn'r debate, because he lacks adquate knowledge. Nabeel should try and debate real scholars like Prof. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Dr. Bilal Philips, Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad, Sheikh Asim Al Hakim, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, Yasir Qadi, Jalal Abualrub etc, or knowledgeable debaters like Bassam Zawadi.
Yahya, unfortunately Wood's claim that 4 witnesses are required for rape is not off the mark. There are some Muslims who believe that it is the case. Of course, these idiots don't know the difference between Zina and rape which actually comes under the category of Hirabah.
Anonymous: Naik shouldn'r debate, because he lacks adquate knowledge. Nabeel should try and debate real scholars like Prof. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Dr. Bilal Philips, Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad, Sheikh Asim Al Hakim, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, Yasir Qadi, Jalal Abualrub etc, or knowledgeable debaters like Bassam Zawadi.
With the exception of Zawadi, none of the people you listed are professional debaters. People seem to forget that debate is more about theatrics and scoring points than about uncovering the truth.
Also, why do you only list Salafis? Wood is a philosopher. Putting up a literalist (which is what most Salafis are) against a philosopher is a bad idea.
It seems that the only debating skill you have are ad hominims and playing fast and loose with the facts.
The truth is Frosty that most Muslims are terrified of debating David, Nabeel or Sam because teyare able to that Islam is nothing more than the delusions of a eplytic war lord.
The teal question is are you worthy of debate. So far from what I have seen you would be vaporized by any of these even on you best daya nd David Nabeel and Sam on the their worse day.
I find it amusing that despite failing his PhD a number of times, and despite getting humiliated by Shabir Ally in every debate they've had, Jay Smith still has the audacity to believe that Muslims are afraid to debate him.
FMM Are you now on record as saying that a person can not believe the Bible and reject the divinity of Christ at the same time?
I say:
No I'm not, I just assumed that fundies like nabeel thought that. Therefore from the point of view of a trinitarian, Newton can't be a true believer of the bible. Are you on record as saying Newton was a believer of the Bible? He believed that worshiping Jesus is idolatry.
You wrote... "Wow!! You are still defending your high priest of shamonian despite him being caught stating 'muslims are a cancer to society'? You are truly a loyal foot soldier for the cult of shamonian."
Sam1528 if you can show me in that video were Sam said "Muslims are a Cancer on society" I will take my Shahada.
Sam never says that, what sam does say is "you guys are a cancer on society" refering to one of Yahya's minons or Yahya himself who came into Sams room and started typing all kinds of the usual nastyness to provoke Sam.
Snow man was already exposed for this lie as you well know. In the original video he inserts the words in text (Muslim) in this latest rendition he inserts the words (refering to Muslims).
But you are a dedicated foot soilder for snowhite.
Radical Moderate might as well announce the Islamic testimony of faith. I've recently discussed Sam's awful behavior with James White on twitter. He reply was simple:
" I have expressed to Sam my disagreement with what happens in PalTalk: it is a poor place for meaningful debate."
He did not, however, correct me when I said that it was 'Muslims' that was the subject matter of Sam's vicious statement.
How about a YT video on which you give your Shahdah Radical Moderate?
No I'm not, I just assumed that fundies like nabeel thought that.
I say,
so you are accusing Nabeel of an error because you believe in this case he agrees with you ?
I say,
Are you on record as saying Newton was a believer of the Bible? He believed that worshiping Jesus is idolatry.
I say,
I'm not sure that is correct. I was under the impression that Newton held to a kind of adoptionism and believed that Jesus is the fathers "vicor" in creation so therefore would be worthy of worship but I must admit that I have not spent a lot of time studying the matter and Newton was not exactly open about his beliefs about the nature of God.
If it is true that Newton denied that Jesus was God in any sense then he did not "believe" such verses as
In the video Nabeel did not claim that Newton was a Christian or that he believed that the Bible was inerrant and clear or that he understood what the Bible taught.
All he is said he was a believer in the Bible I can go on record as agreeing with that.
All he is said he was a believer in the Bible I can go on record as agreeing with that.
I say:
Good. I suggest you read his book or manuscript about the corruption of the scripture titled "A historical account of two notable corruptions of scripture" So when you say that he believed in the bible, it can't be the entire bible.
So when you say that he believed in the bible, it can't be the entire bible.
I say,
The Comma Johanneum in 1st John 5:7 and the word “God” in 1st Timothy 3:16 are not part of the Bible but only a 17th century English translation of the Bible.
So someone can believe in the Bible and not accept these readings as genuine. I know because that’s what I and the vast majority of Christians do.
The 1611 KJV is no more the Bible than the Sahih International translation is the Quran.
The Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew not in English. Christians believe that translations are the Bible only as faithfully represent the original.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says it better than I ever could and it represents the “official” statement on the matter from us fundies so it should settle the matter as to what we believe
Quote:
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
End quote:
From my quick scan it appears to me that Newton in his dissertation is only engaged in an exercise of textual criticism. He is trying to discern exactly what is actual text of these two passages relying on manuscript evidence instead of the translation authorized by King James.
It’s the sort of thing that Christians do all the time. We can do this because when it comes to the Bible textual variants are common knowledge we even footnote them in our versions.
Contrast this to the predicament that Muslims are in. When the state produced an authorized version it destroyed all the manuscripts so there is no way to know what was actually in the original Quran.
"Listen to what he says after he says "You guys are a cancer to society". Listen to the entire context! Well, where is that Shahadha now? :)"
Repeating what he actually said "YOu guys are a cancer to society" is not the same as him saying "YOu Muslims are a cancer to society".
Second I know the context you don't. I was there in the room when it happend. YOu can not know the context becasue Yahya is to afraid to play what was written by Jailbait and others. Sam was responding to them, not to all MUSLIMS, but to them. That is the context.
So no Shahad for me, just another exposure of Yahya SNow lies.
Even Ibn (son of ??????) has refuted one of Yahya lies. And that is 4 male witness to prove rape.
Got to love it when Muslims turn on Muslims, its like using lady bugs to kill apheds. Nature killing nature, the world balances its self out :)
You never fail to amaze me. Are you sure you were present that day? Actually, he doesn't repeat himself at all. Go have another listen, and then come back and take your Shahdha in front of us all, Insh'Allah.
Furthermore, regardless if you were present or not, James White's testimony is far more powerful than yours.
From you : '..I imagine that those who bring up the idea that four witnesses are required to prove rape don't believe the Qur'an to be the word of God or that it is perfectly logical and consistent, in which case when you ask rhetorically if we could ever logically expect for their to be a rape in front of four righteous witnesses you are simply engaging in circular reasoning to defend the Qur'an. If the Qur'an (or Sunnah) does not require such a thing, then this is where you should leave the argument. Please don't try to reason, you will only get yourself in trouble and make Muslims look bad..'
Err , rape falls under 'hirabah' not 'zina'. I repeat my question : where is the so called Quranic verse that calls for 4 witnesses for rape?
You don't have any proof / reference and yet you claim 'circular reasoning' when we muslims dismiss your absurd claim that the Quran calls for 4 witnesses invoving rape. Do you actually know what you are talking about?
As for woods , did he or did he not hit his father with a bullpenn hammer? Yes or no? To me he did not change , he just migrated from hitting his father to hitting Islam. Just look at his arguments ... ha ha ... thighing??
'Coming to christ means his sins are forgiven'?? Like I said he has found another entity to bash , it being Islam. Hmmmm , what were you talking about 'circular reasoning'??
From you : '..Sam never says that, what sam does say is "you guys are a cancer on society" refering to one of Yahya's minons or Yahya himself who came into Sams room and started typing all kinds of the usual nastyness to provoke Sam..'
'You guys' can also mean 'you muslims' in context. Ha ha , you have been cornered and now you are trying to be technical in order to weasel your way out. For your listening pleasure : the high priest of shamonian working himself into a frenzy
Have you made your monthly donation to the cult of shamonian? Your high priest is waiting for your donation.
Sam, you didn't get my point about circular reasoning. Your argument assumes that the Qur'an wouldn't require something as "illogical" as requiring there to be four witnesses to a rape in order to juridically confirm it. I was simply pointing out that whether or not the Qur'an (or Sunnah) does lay down such a requirement, the above argument of yours is fallacious in so far as it assumes that the Qur'an is consistent, which is just the sort of thing that you would have to prove since those who bring up the issue don't believe that. That's what logicians call circular reasoning. I don't know what Muslims call it, but if you are the spokesman for Islam, then apparently they look at it very differently than Christians (and all logicians) do.
Like I said, just stick to asking for proof that such a requirement is part of Shariah. Really. I say this for your good. No need to look dumb when it isn't necessary (assuming you are right that no such thing is required to prove rape).
Let see what we have so far (1) 4 witnesses needed to indict a rapist ... according to david woods (2) I asked (a) where is such verse in the Quran (b) logically if there were 4 witnesses - they would have prevented the rape (3) you (anonymous) , claim that my argument is fallacious as I assumed that the Quran is consistent and I need to prove it to those who don't believe it.
You are right in saying that I don't understand your point about circular reasoning as you don't have any point to begin with. (a) You should be asking woods where is the scriptural evidence when he makes the claim that 4 witnesses are required to indict a rapist regardless whether he believe the Quran to be a the word of Allah or otherwise. (b) For the 2nd time , rape is hirabah (trouble making / terrorism) not zina (adultery - which specifically requires 4 witnesses). Therefore , proving it do not require the stipulated 4 witnesses. (c) You are assuming that I assumed the '..Qur'an wouldn't require something as "illogical" as requiring there to be four witnesses to a rape in order to juridically confirm it..' whereas I was questioning woods logic about 4 witnesses to indict a rapist.
Why do you assume that I assumed such?
Looks like your argument of me employing circular reasoning is based on your assumption. That is extremely poor. Gee whizz , wonder who is the dumb one?
Do tell us how do christians (and logicians) look into this issue of rape and adultery. It will be interesting.
Refuting: "Furthermore, regardless if you were present or not, James White's testimony is far more powerful than yours."
Uhhhh....James White specifically offered "testimony" that Sam Shamoun called all Muslims a cancer? Really? Amazing. Why don't you show us all where we can confirm this on our own.
Or is this just more rumor and hearsay? Actually, is rumor and hearsay a part of your religion?...because Muslims can't seem to get enough of creating it or spreading it. Oh, wait...you don't call it rumor or hearsay, you call it and "isnad". My mistake.
Refuting: "How about you give Didact's twitter a quick perusal: MuslimDidact."
Dr. White didn't confirm that Shamoun called all Muslims a cancer, and you know that fully well. You are attributing statements to him that he didn't make. Again I ask you, why do so many Muslims have an insatiable appetite for hearsay and gossip? Is it a part of your religion or is that merely a coincidence?
James White did not correct me when I mentioned 'Muslims'; it's a tacit admission on his part. And if you listen to the full recording, the context also justifies the claim that Sam was talking about Muslims in general. There is nothing more to debate.
Oh man, Naik is a chronic liar and you are really pretending that other people, people who would easily refute you (and have), need to clean up their act to debate him. My goodness, can you be that thick?
ReplyDeleteI think you should write a post entitled: "Is Yahya Snow Capable of Debating". Most of us know that you are not only not capable, you are positively too scared to do so.
Here is the relevant link to Zakir Naik the fraudster so everyone can see it: Zakir Naik: 25 Errors in Less Than Five Minutes.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I posted on AM concerning their vid about Zakir in which they accuse him of making errors about Darwin etc. Since we now that Dave and his minoions regularly censor comments challenging their errors, I thought it might be a good idea to post it here as well as a sort of insurance.
ReplyDeleteWow you guys are really amazing.
Last time I checked Naik is a human being, capable of making mistakes.
The errors you found don't even pertain to the Bible. You guys are really desperate.
I found a few faults in your presentation.
First of all the Church did supress scientific ideas that went against church doctrine. For instance, Galileo was ordered to stand trial for heresy. Copernicus' theories were banned by the Church. Newton was not a devoted believer of the Bible, in fact he rejected the divinity of Christ.
Get your facts straight before you accuse someone else of making mistakes.
Looks like your comment was refuted on the Answering Muslims blog, Loopy. Too funny. When will you just give it up and bow the knee to Christ?
ReplyDeleteYahya still lying and saying that Sam Shamoun that Muslims are a cancer on society lol.
ReplyDeleteLoopy
He made how many errors in how many seconds? I mean I can see making a mistake here and ther, but this guy just gets on a roll and its one mistake after another.
Dr white made a mistake in the debate with Shabir Alley years ago, he quoted a source as a primary when really it was a secondary.
But Muslims to this day bring that up and say "See Dr White is a Liar" lol
radical moderate ,
ReplyDeleteWow!! You are still defending your high priest of shamonian despite him being caught stating 'muslims are a cancer to society'? You are truly a loyal foot soldier for the cult of shamonian.
Another beauty : your 'bullpenn hammer on father's head', woods , tried to pull a fast one that the Quran requires 4 witnesses for rape. Can you provide the verse? Logically , will there even be rape if there are 4 righteous witnesses?
Are shamonians like you able to think clearly? Oops ... time of the month for your donation to the cult of shamonian.
Not sure about the four witnesses busines, but the following reasoning is attrocious:
ReplyDelete"Another beauty : your 'bullpenn hammer on father's head', woods , tried to pull a fast one that the Quran requires 4 witnesses for rape. Can you provide the verse? Logically , will there even be rape if there are 4 righteous witnesses?"
I imagine that those who bring up the idea that four witnesses are required to prove rape don't believe the Qur'an to be the word of God or that it is perfectly logical and consistent, in which case when you ask rhetorically if we could ever logically expect for their to be a rape in front of four righteous witnesses you are simply engaging in circular reasoning to defend the Qur'an. If the Qur'an (or Sunnah) do not require such a thing, then this is where you should leave the argument. Please don't try to reason, you will only get yourself in trouble and make Muslims look bad.
As for the ad hominem on David Wood, this sort of thing constantly repeated by Muslims is a real turn off. It solidifies in our thinking that Islam is a religion of condemnation and no real forgiveness. According to Christianity, when a person comes to Christ in repentance and faith, his/her sins are forgiven. Of course Muslims don't believe what the prophets or Jesus or the apostles taught about the person and work of the Messiah, but surely you can at least understand that David's prior lifestyle does not mitigate his being a forgiven and changed individual today and someone who can be basically trusted. In other words, when you bring this sort of thing up in order to discredit the arguments of Christians, you are once again begging the question and making Muslims look stupid.
Oh well, I guess it is a habit for some people. Cheers.
Sorry for the typos, let me do this again (unfortunately I can't erase it).
ReplyDeleteNot sure about the four witnesses busines, but the following reasoning is attrocious:
"Another beauty : your 'bullpenn hammer on father's head', woods , tried to pull a fast one that the Quran requires 4 witnesses for rape. Can you provide the verse? Logically , will there even be rape if there are 4 righteous witnesses?"
I imagine that those who bring up the idea that four witnesses are required to prove rape don't believe the Qur'an to be the word of God or that it is perfectly logical and consistent, in which case when you ask rhetorically if we could ever logically expect for their to be a rape in front of four righteous witnesses you are simply engaging in circular reasoning to defend the Qur'an. If the Qur'an (or Sunnah) does not require such a thing, then this is where you should leave the argument. Please don't try to reason, you will only get yourself in trouble and make Muslims look bad.
As for the ad hominem on David Wood, this sort of thing constantly repeated by Muslims is a real turn off. It solidifies in our thinking that Islam is a religion of condemnation and no real forgiveness. According to Christianity, when a person comes to Christ in repentance and faith, his/her sins are forgiven. Of course Muslims don't believe what the prophets or Jesus or the apostles taught about the person and work of the Messiah, but surely you can at least understand that David's prior lifestyle does not mitigate his being a forgiven and changed individual today and someone who can be basically trusted according to Christianity. In other words, when you bring this sort of thing up in order to discredit the arguments of Christians, you are once again begging the question and making Muslims look stupid.
Oh well, I guess it is a habit for some people. Cheers.
Naik shouldn'r debate, because he lacks adquate knowledge. Nabeel should try and debate real scholars like Prof. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Dr. Bilal Philips, Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad, Sheikh Asim Al Hakim, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, Yasir Qadi, Jalal Abualrub etc, or knowledgeable debaters like Bassam Zawadi.
ReplyDeletelupus said:
ReplyDeleteNewton was not a devoted believer of the Bible, in fact he rejected the divinity of Christ.
I say,
let me get this strait
Are you now on record as saying that a person can not believe the Bible and reject the divinity of Christ at the same time?
peace
IBN here
ReplyDeleteYahya, unfortunately Wood's claim that 4 witnesses are required for rape is not off the mark. There are some Muslims who believe that it is the case. Of course, these idiots don't know the difference between Zina and rape which actually comes under the category of Hirabah.
IBN here
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Naik shouldn'r debate, because he lacks adquate knowledge. Nabeel should try and debate real scholars like Prof. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Dr. Bilal Philips, Sheikh Haitham Al Haddad, Sheikh Asim Al Hakim, Sheikh Shady Alsuleiman, Yasir Qadi, Jalal Abualrub etc, or knowledgeable debaters like Bassam Zawadi.
With the exception of Zawadi, none of the people you listed are professional debaters. People seem to forget that debate is more about theatrics and scoring points than about uncovering the truth.
Also, why do you only list Salafis? Wood is a philosopher. Putting up a literalist (which is what most Salafis are) against a philosopher is a bad idea.
Frosty Frosty frosty
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the only debating skill you have are ad hominims and playing fast and loose with the facts.
The truth is Frosty that most Muslims are terrified of debating David, Nabeel or Sam because teyare able to that Islam is nothing more than the delusions of a eplytic war lord.
Frosty
ReplyDeleteThe teal question is are you worthy of debate. So far from what I have seen you would be vaporized by any of these even on you best daya nd David Nabeel and Sam on the their worse day.
Bart: "ad hominims", "teyare ", "eplytic", "teal", "daya"
ReplyDeleteUneducated Christians! Gotta love em!
i need to use my spell checker
ReplyDeleteI find it amusing that despite failing his PhD a number of times, and despite getting humiliated by Shabir Ally in every debate they've had, Jay Smith still has the audacity to believe that Muslims are afraid to debate him.
ReplyDeleteFMM
ReplyDeleteAre you now on record as saying that a person can not believe the Bible and reject the divinity of Christ at the same time?
I say:
No I'm not, I just assumed that fundies like nabeel thought that. Therefore from the point of view of a trinitarian, Newton can't be a true believer of the bible.
Are you on record as saying Newton was a believer of the Bible? He believed that worshiping Jesus is idolatry.
@Sam1528
ReplyDeleteYou wrote...
"Wow!! You are still defending your high priest of shamonian despite him being caught stating 'muslims are a cancer to society'? You are truly a loyal foot soldier for the cult of shamonian."
Sam1528 if you can show me in that video were Sam said "Muslims are a Cancer on society" I will take my Shahada.
Sam never says that, what sam does say is "you guys are a cancer on society" refering to one of Yahya's minons or Yahya himself who came into Sams room and started typing all kinds of the usual nastyness to provoke Sam.
Snow man was already exposed for this lie as you well know. In the original video he inserts the words in text (Muslim) in this latest rendition he inserts the words (refering to Muslims).
But you are a dedicated foot soilder for snowhite.
Time to take your Shahadha Radical Moderate, Insh'Allah:
ReplyDeleteListen to what he says after he says "You guys are a cancer to society". Listen to the entire context! Well, where is that Shahadha now? :)
Radical Moderate might as well announce the Islamic testimony of faith. I've recently discussed Sam's awful behavior with James White on twitter. He reply was simple:
ReplyDelete" I have expressed to Sam my disagreement with what happens in PalTalk: it is a poor place for meaningful debate."
He did not, however, correct me when I said that it was 'Muslims' that was the subject matter of Sam's vicious statement.
How about a YT video on which you give your Shahdah Radical Moderate?
Welcome to Islam
--Didact
This just in...
ReplyDeleteMideo Cruz, a Filipino artist, has created a giant wooden crucifix with a bright red penis which moves up and down.
As a result of this venture he's been bombarded with hate mail and death threats.
'Filipino artist receives death threats after creating a 'penis crucifix'
http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/871178-filipino-artist-receives-death-threats-after-creating-penis-crucifix
Hmmmmm, I wonder who could be behind such murderous hatred and intolerance?
Radical Confucianists perhaps? Oh wait, what about extremist Zoroastrians? Could it be fundamentalist Jains?
Alright I know, I know...there is, after all, only one religion out there that could be the inspiration for such violence and intolerence right?
;)
lupus said,
ReplyDeleteNo I'm not, I just assumed that fundies like nabeel thought that.
I say,
so you are accusing Nabeel of an error because you believe in this case he agrees with you ?
I say,
Are you on record as saying Newton was a believer of the Bible? He believed that worshiping Jesus is idolatry.
I say,
I'm not sure that is correct. I was under the impression that Newton held to a kind of adoptionism and believed that Jesus is the fathers "vicor" in creation so therefore would be worthy of worship but I must admit that I have not spent a lot of time studying the matter and Newton was not exactly open about his beliefs about the nature of God.
If it is true that Newton denied that Jesus was God in any sense then he did not "believe" such verses as
Joh_1:1; Joh_20:28; Psa_45:6; Isa_7:14, Isa_9:6, Isa_40:9-11; Mat_1:23; Rom_9:5; Phi_2:6; 1Ti_3:16; Tit_2:13; Heb_1:8-13; 2Pe_1:1 *Gr: 1Jo_5:7, 1Jo_5:20
and many more.
In the video Nabeel did not claim that Newton was a Christian or that he believed that the Bible was inerrant and clear or that he understood what the Bible taught.
All he is said he was a believer in the Bible I can go on record as agreeing with that.
Peace
FMM said:
ReplyDeleteAll he is said he was a believer in the Bible I can go on record as agreeing with that.
I say:
Good. I suggest you read his book or manuscript about the corruption of the scripture titled "A historical account of two notable corruptions of scripture"
So when you say that he believed in the bible, it can't be the entire bible.
lupus said:
ReplyDeleteSo when you say that he believed in the bible, it can't be the entire bible.
I say,
The Comma Johanneum in 1st John 5:7 and the word “God” in 1st Timothy 3:16 are not part of the Bible but only a 17th century English translation of the Bible.
So someone can believe in the Bible and not accept these readings as genuine. I know because that’s what I and the vast majority of Christians do.
The 1611 KJV is no more the Bible than the Sahih International translation is the Quran.
The Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew not in English. Christians believe that translations are the Bible only as faithfully represent the original.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says it better than I ever could and it represents the “official” statement on the matter from us fundies so it should settle the matter as to what we believe
Quote:
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
End quote:
From my quick scan it appears to me that Newton in his dissertation is only engaged in an exercise of textual criticism. He is trying to discern exactly what is actual text of these two passages relying on manuscript evidence instead of the translation authorized by King James.
It’s the sort of thing that Christians do all the time. We can do this because when it comes to the Bible textual variants are common knowledge we even footnote them in our versions.
Contrast this to the predicament that Muslims are in. When the state produced an authorized version it destroyed all the manuscripts so there is no way to know what was actually in the original Quran.
peace
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Non Refuting
ReplyDeleteYou wrote....
"Listen to what he says after he says "You guys are a cancer to society". Listen to the entire context! Well, where is that Shahadha now? :)"
Repeating what he actually said "YOu guys are a cancer to society" is not the same as him saying "YOu Muslims are a cancer to society".
Second I know the context you don't. I was there in the room when it happend. YOu can not know the context becasue Yahya is to afraid to play what was written by Jailbait and others. Sam was responding to them, not to all MUSLIMS, but to them. That is the context.
So no Shahad for me, just another exposure of Yahya SNow lies.
Even Ibn (son of ??????) has refuted one of Yahya lies. And that is 4 male witness to prove rape.
Got to love it when Muslims turn on Muslims, its like using lady bugs to kill apheds. Nature killing nature, the world balances its self out :)
@Radical Moderatre
ReplyDeleteYou never fail to amaze me. Are you sure you were present that day? Actually, he doesn't repeat himself at all. Go have another listen, and then come back and take your Shahdha in front of us all, Insh'Allah.
Furthermore, regardless if you were present or not, James White's testimony is far more powerful than yours.
You said you were present, how can you not know how he finished off his hateful tirade?
ReplyDeleteYour claim is not supported by the evidence (recording).
anonymous ,
ReplyDeleteFrom you :
'..I imagine that those who bring up the idea that four witnesses are required to prove rape don't believe the Qur'an to be the word of God or that it is perfectly logical and consistent, in which case when you ask rhetorically if we could ever logically expect for their to be a rape in front of four righteous witnesses you are simply engaging in circular reasoning to defend the Qur'an. If the Qur'an (or Sunnah) does not require such a thing, then this is where you should leave the argument. Please don't try to reason, you will only get yourself in trouble and make Muslims look bad..'
Err , rape falls under 'hirabah' not 'zina'. I repeat my question : where is the so called Quranic verse that calls for 4 witnesses for rape?
You don't have any proof / reference and yet you claim 'circular reasoning' when we muslims dismiss your absurd claim that the Quran calls for 4 witnesses invoving rape. Do you actually know what you are talking about?
As for woods , did he or did he not hit his father with a bullpenn hammer? Yes or no? To me he did not change , he just migrated from hitting his father to hitting Islam. Just look at his arguments ... ha ha ... thighing??
'Coming to christ means his sins are forgiven'?? Like I said he has found another entity to bash , it being Islam. Hmmmm , what were you talking about 'circular reasoning'??
radical moderate ,
ReplyDeleteFrom you :
'..Sam never says that, what sam does say is "you guys are a cancer on society" refering to one of Yahya's minons or Yahya himself who came into Sams room and started typing all kinds of the usual nastyness to provoke Sam..'
'You guys' can also mean 'you muslims' in context. Ha ha , you have been cornered and now you are trying to be technical in order to weasel your way out. For your listening pleasure :
the high priest of shamonian working himself into a frenzy
Have you made your monthly donation to the cult of shamonian? Your high priest is waiting for your donation.
Sam, you didn't get my point about circular reasoning. Your argument assumes that the Qur'an wouldn't require something as "illogical" as requiring there to be four witnesses to a rape in order to juridically confirm it. I was simply pointing out that whether or not the Qur'an (or Sunnah) does lay down such a requirement, the above argument of yours is fallacious in so far as it assumes that the Qur'an is consistent, which is just the sort of thing that you would have to prove since those who bring up the issue don't believe that. That's what logicians call circular reasoning. I don't know what Muslims call it, but if you are the spokesman for Islam, then apparently they look at it very differently than Christians (and all logicians) do.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, just stick to asking for proof that such a requirement is part of Shariah. Really. I say this for your good. No need to look dumb when it isn't necessary (assuming you are right that no such thing is required to prove rape).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteanonymous,
ReplyDeleteLet see what we have so far
(1) 4 witnesses needed to indict a rapist ... according to david woods
(2) I asked (a) where is such verse in the Quran (b) logically if there were 4 witnesses - they would have prevented the rape
(3) you (anonymous) , claim that my argument is fallacious as I assumed that the Quran is consistent and I need to prove it to those who don't believe it.
You are right in saying that I don't understand your point about circular reasoning as you don't have any point to begin with.
(a) You should be asking woods where is the scriptural evidence when he makes the claim that 4 witnesses are required to indict a rapist regardless whether he believe the Quran to be a the word of Allah or otherwise.
(b) For the 2nd time , rape is hirabah (trouble making / terrorism) not zina (adultery - which specifically requires 4 witnesses). Therefore , proving it do not require the stipulated 4 witnesses.
(c) You are assuming that I assumed the '..Qur'an wouldn't require something as "illogical" as requiring there to be four witnesses to a rape in order to juridically confirm it..' whereas I was questioning woods logic about 4 witnesses to indict a rapist.
Why do you assume that I assumed such?
Looks like your argument of me employing circular reasoning is based on your assumption. That is extremely poor. Gee whizz , wonder who is the dumb one?
Do tell us how do christians (and logicians) look into this issue of rape and adultery. It will be interesting.
Refuting: "Furthermore, regardless if you were present or not, James White's testimony is far more powerful than yours."
ReplyDeleteUhhhh....James White specifically offered "testimony" that Sam Shamoun called all Muslims a cancer? Really? Amazing. Why don't you show us all where we can confirm this on our own.
Or is this just more rumor and hearsay? Actually, is rumor and hearsay a part of your religion?...because Muslims can't seem to get enough of creating it or spreading it. Oh, wait...you don't call it rumor or hearsay, you call it and "isnad". My mistake.
How about you give Didact's twitter a quick perusal: MuslimDidact.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy.
Pat Robertson is a muslim.lol. watch a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdR0RKe8GxQ
ReplyDeleteRefuting: "How about you give Didact's twitter a quick perusal: MuslimDidact."
ReplyDeleteDr. White didn't confirm that Shamoun called all Muslims a cancer, and you know that fully well. You are attributing statements to him that he didn't make. Again I ask you, why do so many Muslims have an insatiable appetite for hearsay and gossip? Is it a part of your religion or is that merely a coincidence?
@Anon
ReplyDeleteJames White did not correct me when I mentioned 'Muslims'; it's a tacit admission on his part. And if you listen to the full recording, the context also justifies the claim that Sam was talking about Muslims in general. There is nothing more to debate.
-Didact