Constructive criticism of Osama Abdallah
Before the debate review, some constructive criticism for
Osama Abdallah in order to help Osama Abdallah in the future.
Sam Shamoun is a dishonest and obnoxious man who is considered unworthy of debate – the man is a true disaster in apologetics. By debating such a person one ends up appearing to be ‘legitimizing’ and allowing his insults, deceptions and general craziness to be swept under the rug. Mainstream Muslim speakers do not consider Shamoun with any regard. The man has some serious issues of dishonesty, hatred towards Muslims and immorality as highlighted in the Sam Shamoun section here:
I cannot agree with Osama’s decision to share a platform
with Shamoun. Why feed the trolls? Why help resuscitate his dead apologetics
career? Why allow his unchecked insults and blasphemies go unpunished? This is
a man who trolls comment sections and abuses Muslims in his attempts to arrange
a debates.
Osama, from my understanding had FOUR DEBATES against FOUR different
opponents in TWO days
This is a ridiculous amount of responsibility to take on. I
actually criticise Osama for taking on such a work load. Why he did so I am not
sure. It certainly is not wise and nor beneficial to oneself or the audience. How
does he expect to do each topic justice with his attention diverted 4 ways? This
is not a game – it’s serious business.
You can’t offer the same clarity, quality information and
quality argumentation in each debate as you would if you focussed on one debate
like each one of his opponents (Sam Shamoun, Anthony Rogers, Dr Edward Dalcour
and Louis Lionheart).
Osama was had – either he was duped or he made a humongous
error in judgement and his opponents rubbed their hands with glee. The ‘Center
for Religious Debate’ must have been licking their chops with anticipation of
the lone ‘sheep’ that was going to be hunted by for of their ‘wolves’ The
interesting thing here is, as you will see in the review below, his opponent
could not make any real inroads due to an absence of genuine and consistent
argumentation.
Osama’s performance in many ways reflected this four-fold
dilution despite making numerous good points he lacked flow, organisation of
thoughts, coherence (at times), research, planning, structure and decorum (at
times). This is not doing the Muslim community justice at all.
The organisation of the debate was shoddy. It seemed as
though they were forming the debate format whilst debating. Osama close to the
end just became less professional and less controlled – it actually became a
farce. I guess the stress of having to do 4 debates in 4 days with 4 different
opponents was getting to him. I also think Osama’s lack of preparation added to
his frustrations which led to his inability to maintain an acceptable level of restraint.
Muslim argumentation is so much stronger than Christian
argumentation and much of the leg work has actually been done for you by the
likes of Dr Shabir Ally. For a Muslim debater it’s essentially just a matter of
turning up ORGANISED and PREPARED. Have an opening statement penned. For me
there is no excuse for a Muslim debater not to be fluent in his OS. No excuse
at all. Pen it and practice it. Then turn up and deliver it.
Debate Review: Osama Abdallah v Sam Shamoun on ‘Was Muhammad
a True Prophet?’
Osama used the Bible to convince his audience of the
Prophethood of Muhammad. This is fair enough and makes sense as I believe his
immediate audience was primarily consisting of Christians. However Osama spent too long on
this line of argumentation, in fact most if not all his presentation was based
on this line of argumentation which for me was an unwise move on the part of
Osama.
It’s easy to argue for the Prophethood of Muhammad (p) as
here is a man (p) who called people back to Abrahamic monotheism, performed
miracles, confirmed the previous Prophets (p) including Jesus and significantly
he came with a Book (the Quran) from God which contains historical, numerical
and scientific miracles.
Scientific facts in the Quran (by Abdur-Raheem Green):
Historical Facts in the Quran:
Mathematical miracles in the Quran (Dr Shabir Ally):
Those around the Prophet are actually powerful witnesses as
here we have thousands of people who met him (many of whom knew him well) were
so convinced of the Prophethood of Muhammad (p) which was revealed to the
Prophet that they were willing to die for such beliefs. This is a powerful
witness for those who want to reflect.
The fruits of what was revealed to Prophet Muhammad have
actually defended Mary (may Allah bless her further) against false allegations
and have the lowest amount of sex outside of marriage (fornication and
adultery) – a recent study has shown
that Muslims have the least sex outside of marriage out of all the world’s
major religions:
Aside from producing a group of people who are better
behaved sexually than any other group we can also see Muslims are famous for
not drinking alcohol. Medical professionals would applaud this as alcohol is a
risk factor for cancer amongst other ailments of the health - sincere Christians
would also appreciate this in the light of the following verses in their Bible:
“Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is
deceived thereby is not wise.” [Book
of Proverbs 20:1]
“And be not drunk with wine”. [Book of Ephesians 5:18]
Islam brings back the teachings of covering your head (a
teaching which is forgotten by many Christian women), keeping a beard for the
man and worshipping God alone through prostrations (the manner in which Jesus
worshipped God).
Osama would have made better use of his time if he truncated
the arguments from the Bible and added a standard presentation to his Biblical
arguments – similar to the accumulative type which Dr Shabir Ally or an iERA
speaker would present.
Sam Shamoun throws the Bible behind his back
Sam Shamoun had no genuine or consistent argumentation. Shamoun
focuses on 2 or three small incidents in the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) and
presented his own narrative to argue against the character of Prophet Muhammad
(p). In the process he threw the Bible behind his back. His desperation to
argue against the Prophethood led him to such an inconsistent and disingenuous level
of argumentation.
If he can accept Moses (who according to Exodus 32 passed on
the command from God to kill roughly 3000 men plus according to Numbers 31 it
shows Moses giving the instruction to kill boys and women) , David (who
according to the 2 Samuel 11 committed adultery), Lot (who according to the Genesis was involved in incest unknowingly) and Solomon (who according to the1
Kings 11 had 700 wives and 300 concubines – the same reference also says he was
led astray by his wives) as Prophets then he would be hypocritical to argue
against Prophet Muhammad in such a way.
Shamoun presented the same tired and already-refuted
argument of ‘special privileges’ for Prophet Muhammad (p). Shamoun tries to
make out that the Prophet Muhammad was using the religion as a self-serving
vehicle. This again is another argument which lacks thought. Theres an account
where Umar ibn AlKhattab was weeping upon seeing the austere way Prophet Muhammad
lived. He did not live in luxury. Surely if you were a man who was misusing a
religion to gain special privileges you would not live in such austerity. Here
is an article by Bassam Zawadi to aid people’s understanding further:
The pagans, upon seeing the followers of Prophet Muhammad
(p) increasing, they offered him wealth and power to the extent of him becoming
the richest amongst them and a king – Prophet Muhammad declined and stood fast
to Islam. So Shamoun’s self-serving argumentation is just illogical, old, boring and oft refuted.
The problem with Sam Shamoun is his hatred and pride leave
his ability to think logically clouded hence arguments of this calibre. In fact
Shamoun or anybody else for that matter does not need copious research to
realise the invalidity of the ‘self-serving’ argument as numerous people who
were staunch believers and contemporaries of Prophet Muhammad – people who knew
him well –risked their lives and some actually lost their lives for the
religion revealed to the Prophet. People don’t risk or lose their lives if they
believe the founder is solely in it for himself. Here is a short article by
Sami Zaatari to aid people’s understanding further:
Shamoun throws his Bible aside in order to argue against what he deems 'irrational teachings from ahadith'
Shamoun then proceeded with an inconsistent (hypocritical) line
of argumentation which he deemed to be ‘irrational teachings’ of Prophet
Muhammad (p). An example here is Shamoun’s criticism of Adam’s height being 60
cubits.
On what basis can Shamoun as a supposed Bible-believing
Christian criticise this? Shamoun actually believes in giants as the Bible
mentions them (Genesis 6). So what is Shamoun’s problem? Clearly a desire to
grab any absurdly inconsistent (hypocritical) argument and throw it out there!
It highlights the lack of argumentation he has. In fact
Osama Abdallah actually presented science to show that the inhabitants of earth
were bigger in the early history of the earth – hence the size of dinoaurs.
However, I don’t think Osama needed to even go to such an extent with Shamoun’s
argumentation as Shamoun believes angels had intercourse with humans (women)
and the offspring were giants. Thus his Bible is indicating heavenly bodies
are actually bigger!
Another example here is his criticism of the Muslim belief that
Satan urinates. Shamoun believes this is irrational as he believes Satan is a
spiritual being so does not urinate. Erm says who? Has Shamoun met Satan and
followed him around to check if he urinates or has bowel movements? Why is
Shamoun trying to make Satan out to be cleaner than human beings?
The elephantine portion of inconsistency (hypocrisy) of his
argument is highlighted as angels (genuine spiritual beings) are believed (by
Paul and other Trinitarian Christians such as Shamoun) to have sex and lust:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/christian-head-coverings-stops-sexual.html
So why is Sam Shamoun objecting to Satan urinating whilst Paul
was believing that angels have sex with humans and lust after Christian women
who don’t cover their heads?
Looks like Shamoun is defending Satan and attacking
angels all in order to present a case against the Prophethood of Muhammad (p).
Bizarre!
Shamoun wastes time by making much hoohaa over ‘satan in your
nose’. It seems as though Shamoun just plucked this argument from some tacky
anti-Muslim flyer and just ran with it in the debate.
Again, Shamoun throws his Bible behind his back just to
leach on to any argument against Islam:
He must have read his own Bible which has dozens of statements
about Satan entering the bodies and bellies of people. The Gospel of John says
that after Judas ate food from Jesus’ own hand, “Satan entered into him.” (John
13:27) So if after eating food from Jesus’ hand one could not be safe from
Satan, what is surprising if an ordinary person has Satan near his nose during
the night? [Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi]
Did Shamoun even stop to bother to check if his anti-Muslim flyer
style argument had already been discussed by scholars? Shamoun, would do well
to read the following by Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi:
Muslim scholars explain that the nose is one of the ways to one’s
mind and thoughts. Satan tries to put his ideas and suggestions into the mind
of a person during his sleep as well. The best cure is that after waking up one
should clean one’s nose, make ablution for Prayers and seek God’s protection.
Some other scholars say that Satan is a symbol of everything bad and evil.
Through this symbolism the Prophet was warning the people to be conscious about
the cleanliness of their bodies. In the hot and dry climate, the nose does
become stuffy during the night. One feels like the devil was in the nose. This
was the Prophetic way to tell the people to keep themselves clean and make
ablution as soon as they get up.
All Semitic languages, and especially Arabic, are full of metaphors and hyperboles. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) used to speak in parables; similarly, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) used to instruct his people sometimes in a metaphorical and symbolic language. It is reported that Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) supposedly said, “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:6) These words fit very well on those who do not try to understand the Prophetic pearls and holy language. The author of this flyer should pay attention to these words of Jesus."
All Semitic languages, and especially Arabic, are full of metaphors and hyperboles. Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) used to speak in parables; similarly, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) used to instruct his people sometimes in a metaphorical and symbolic language. It is reported that Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) supposedly said, “Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:6) These words fit very well on those who do not try to understand the Prophetic pearls and holy language. The author of this flyer should pay attention to these words of Jesus."
I would also ask Shamoun to look at this video as this
Christian is being ridiculed by for believing in talking animals (snake and donkey)
as he believes in the Bible. Shamoun tossed the Bible behind his back and resembled the man mocking the poor Christian in the video whilst presenting his argument against food praising God. Why is
Shamoun arguing like an atheist? Simple, he feels he has to throw his Bible behind his
back in order to argue against Islam. God can make whatever He wills talk –
serious Christians and Muslims know this. Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq6zqDYfcek
In sum Shamoun’s argumentations against selected ahadith
were actually hypocritical as he once again threw the Bible behind his back
just to scrape some silly arguments from the bottom of the barrel to use in
some internet debate against the Prophethood of Muhammad (p). What a sad man.
Shamoun bangs on about slave girls – he even claims rape
took place. Erm the Islamic sources are vast, there’s no record of rape and
Islam does not allow rape of slave girls or anybody else. Here is an article by
Bassam Zawadi to aid people’s understanding further on slave girls and the rape
allegation:
Shamoun also makes a big deal out of Mut’ah. He forgets
Islam did not come down all at once. It was revealed over a period of 23 years
so the prohibition is not necessarily immediate – this is the same for alcohol
there was no prohibition of alcohol initially. Article on Muta being forbidden in Islam by
Sami Zaatari:
Shamoun throws honesty and commonsense out of the window
We’ve seen Shamoun is so entrenched in his hatred of Islam that
he throws consistency and his Bible behind his back but here he just lost all
control and decided to throw honesty and common sense out of the window.
Shamoun just literally started to make stuff up. He claimed
Aisha was prepubescent when her marriage was consummated. What a liar. Even
this ignoramus would know that scholarly consensus is that Aisha had attained puberty.
The marriage between Prophet Muhammad and Aisha was similar to the practice
which Jews practiced (even at the time of Jesus). See here for the scholarship of Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes, on this subject (it beats listening to Shamoun's lies):
Shamoun lied further by claiming the Quran allows sex with
prepubescent girls. Another blatant lie which goes against scholarly consensus
and common sense - who are you going to believe scholarly consensus or an anti-Muslim
bloke on the internet who is making crazy claims?
Which lie is Shamoun going to regurgitate next? The ‘thighing’
lie? See here:
Conclusions
Osama Abdallah was unprepared, lacked composure and wrongly chose
to go almost exclusively with arguments of Biblical prophecies of Prophet
Muhammad (p). He did not even present half of the standard material that
non-Muslims should be made aware of when discussing the Prophethood of Muhammad
(p). 40 minutes for an OP should be used better. When you are arguing for the
affirmative then the OP becomes even more important as you need to present more
material than your opponent. Osama should have made better use of his 40 mins.
Sam Shamoun was dishonest, disingenuous and inconsistent to
the extent of throwing his own Bible behind his back. The baulk of Shamoun’s presentation
was inconsistent as he simply threw the Bible behind his back to make way for
emotional arguments against the Prophethood of Muhammad (p). This speaks volumes
of Shamoun’s demeanour – he is motivated out of pride and a misguided hatred
for Islam rather than from a stance of BIBLICAL evangelism.
Again, I point Shamoun to his own Bible and ask him how he
can accept the Prophethood of Moses, David, Solomon and Lot (in the light of
respective Biblical stories highlighted earlier in this review) yet reject the
clear Prophethood of Muhammad and present hypocritical arguments against him?
Is it due to hatred and pride?
His inconsistent (hypocritical) and illogical arguments are one thing but his outright lying is another. Please can we send Shamoun back to the debate-blacklist. The man is an embarrassment to Christian apologetics.
Now you see why educated Christians would not value Shamoun’s
argumentation.
Education and consistency is a good thing, Mr Shamoun. Try
it some day.
Do I recommend this debate? No. It has little benefit. There’s
plenty of other presentations out there that are of greater benefit to the
truth-seeker and the researcher.
Doubtless, this debate will be viewed by cheerleaders who
just want a bit of entertainment. Debates on such topics are not games. This is serious stuff.
If you want to learn about Muslim arguments for the
Prophethood of Muhammad here is a presentation from Dr Shabir Ally:
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYahya. A debate review looks at the performance of each speaker, and the ability of either side to provide a rebuttal or not, instead of actually commenting on what a speaker should have said to win the debate.
ReplyDeleteObjectively, who won the debate ? Sam or Osama?
Thank you.
Sam shamoun exposed again. When will he learn. He gets money
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLike the lowlife coward you are, you removed my debate challenges for all to see. However, I am going to keep reposting the same stuff over and over again until you accept my challenge. I will especially make sure to repost them during the time you sleep since this will insure that my comments remain intact for hours so that others will get to see them before you delete them. So here goes my debate challenges:
ReplyDeleteWas Muhammad a true prophet of God?
Did Muhammad believe the Holy Bible is corrupt?
Has the Quran been perfectly preserved?
Now instead of barking away on your blog why not pretend to be a man and step up to defend your prophet.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSam r u feeling ok? Trashing somebody's site with crap. Sam u need help man.
ReplyDeleteSam gone wild.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete