Answering Muslims: Nadir Ahmed Declares: Shabir Ally Is a "Dummy"!!!

Home

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Nadir Ahmed Declares: Shabir Ally Is a "Dummy"!!!

In a recent post, I described Nadir Ahmed's Long War against Shabir Ally. Nadir understands that Shabir is one of the most respected Muslim debaters in the world. Yet Nadir wants to be Islam's greatest debater. So how does he go about this? Does he study carefully, earning the respect of Christians and Muslims alike? No. Nadir attacks his fellow Muslims, hoping that this will help him rise to fame. As I showed in the former article, Nadir has said that Shabir Ally is weak-minded, and that debating Shabir Ally is like debating someone's grandma!

Yet Nadir isn't letting up in his war against Shabir. A couple of hours ago, Nadir called in to James White's radio program and called Shabir a "dummy"! Would anyone listening to Shabir Ally claim that he is a dummy? (Click here to listen to the show.)

This program was quite informative, as it evolved into a brief, informal debate on the textual integrity of the Qur'an. It's amazing to see Nadir try to reinterpret clear passages from Al-Bukhari!

Posted by David Wood at 8:11 PM

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Labels: James White, Nadir Ahmed, Shabir Ally

13 comments:

Bassam said...: It is interesting to note that James White commits according to David Wood's logic 'a tu quo que fallacy'

James White insists that Nadir must be following the same standard of textual criticism for the New Testament as he does for the Quran and he claims that this is relevant to the debate.

However, when Muslims argue that Christians must apply the same standard to their Bible when they try to argue that Islam advocates immorality or violence, they shout out 'tu quo que fallacy!'.

But if Christians like James White do the same thing but for a different topic; then noo its okay.

How much more blatant can these double standards be?

(by the way Muslims would be justified in doing this technique with Christians but James wouldn't be in his debate with Nadir, however I am not going to waste time here trying to explain why that is so)

James White also makes a mistake by claiming that Saheeh Bukhari states that only one person had a Quranic verse in memory. I already addressed that issue over here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/are_the_verses_from_surah_9_128_129_and_surah_33_23_falsely_added_to_the_quran_

Wood, stop picking on Nadir and start picking on me. Lets start the crossfire and finish our book.

Chow; February 1, 2008 at 8:45 AM
GeneMBridges said...: However, when Muslims argue that Christians must apply the same standard to their Bible when they try to argue that Islam advocates immorality or violence, they shout out 'tu quo que fallacy!'.

We've been over this ground before with you. When you make this claim, we exegete the text. You make claims that your question-begging exegesis can't substantiate. Indeed, all you do is begin with "the God of the Bible subborns violence, etc." and then you don't bother to deal with what the text actually says. What you do, as I have demonstrated many times, is leave out the rest of the story. You really are a second rate adversary.

Sure, the OT has a doctrine of holy war. We don't deny this. Of course, we also believe in something called Covenant Theology in these parts, and that means we see the OT as nothing but signs and shadows of what the NT makes plain. That sort of thinking enjoys a long history, going back to Iranaeus. Indeed, it goes back to the author of Hebrews. The NT's doctrine of "holy war" is wholly spiritual.

Your argument might also work on the Village Arminian, but those of us, like Dr. White, who are Calvinists have no problem with the idea that God decrees all things. We also have a doctrine of means, whereby the means are also decreed.; February 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM
David Wood said...: Bassam,

I think there's a difference between the Tu Quoque fallacy and an obvious methodological inconsistency. But let's assume they're the same. Could you imagine me saying that you are absolutely not allowed to bring up Christianity if we're discussing Islam? It would never cross my mind. Yet Nadir was trying to keep James from pointing out any inconsistency at all.

On a different note, I was wondering if you agree with Nadir that Shabir Ally is a "dummy."

(P.S. I was just speaking at a conference, so I'm a bit behind on things. However, I'm ready to get back to our debate.); February 1, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Bassam said...: David said

I think there's a difference between the Tu Quoque fallacy and an obvious methodological inconsistency.

Sorry David, but I can argue the same thing by saying that you are not following an obvious methodological consistency when trying to argue against Islam.

Now your saying that Nadir should refute this in his debate. Fine, well i say the same thing with you. But instead, you argue 'tu quo que'.

Plus Nadir is not trying to run away from the issue. He understood James White's perspective but he just expressed his concern regarding the time limit.

Of course I don't agree with what Nadir said about Shabir. I emailed Nadir and told him that this was wrong. I have no problem stating this publicly.

I just wish that Christians such as your self and Jochen Katz can go public and condemn Shamoun's behaviour and vindicate Christianity from it.

In my article http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/sam_shamoun__a_disgrace_to_christians_ i let the Muslims know that Christianity does not permit Shamoun's behavior. However, i dont think its enough for a Muslim such as my self to defend Christianity here. I think others such as your self should speak up as well.

Regards,

Bassam; February 2, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Sunil said...: David Wood,

>> It's amazing to see Nadir try to reinterpret clear passages from Al-Bukhari!

Today's Muslim apologists are forced to say things that Muhammad himself did not say (leave alone Al-Bukhari!). Nadir is forced to say (in his debate with Sam) that the rightly guided Caliphs are not rightly guided!! Muhammad may have erred in ignorance about the facts/teachings/doctrine/Morality etc of Jesus/Scriptures, but he never spoke out against Jesus (he considered himself to be a continuity of previous Revelation), but Nadir is forced to speak out against Jesus and things that Muhammad himself tried to base his legitimacy on. Today’s apologists are forced to take indefensible stands like Muhammad talked about a Book that never existed, while Qur'an makes it clear that the Torah and Gospel are revealed to Moses and Jesus. The Islam of Nadir and many other apologists is completely delinked from the Islam that Muhammad himself envisioned/based. The inconsistencies of Nadir can be forgiven - after all, he is trying to defend the indefensible. He loves his religion more than truth/light, so he continues to do that. It appears to me that it is just a matter of time (may be a few years) when everyone can see these inconsistencies and indefensibility of islam which is hanging in mid-air (relatively recent history) without a legitimacy from the past and without roots to stand on. And it is muslims themselves that are forced to self-refute the roots of legitimacy on which Muhammad wanted to base himself on. I am sure that Nadir and others can clearly see this, but an illogical sentimental love for religion can blind common sense.; February 3, 2008 at 5:33 AM
ChristianJR4 said...: I have to agree that James White commits the "Tu Quoque" fallacy when he brings the Quran into the discussion. He did this in his debate with Shabir Ally on the New Testament being inspired or not. He thinks that a methodological inconsistency invalidates the arguments of his opponent which of course is clearly false. An argument that is inconsistent with itself is invalid, but not when a person is inconsistent in his method in treating his respective scriptures. I'm amazed that White still doesn't know the difference since his debate with Ally. Shabir actually wrote a good article (on his website) explaining White's error here. By bringing up the Quran it took away from the topic of the debate and forced Shabir to defend it.

I can't help but think that White will do the same thing with Nadir when they debate. So I think Nadir was right to ask for clarification of what they'll be debating.

I should note however that it's alright to call a person out on an inconsistent approach to judging certain scriptures, but you have to understand the difference between that (calling them out on their double standard) and using that as a basis for ignoring their arguments and thinking them invalid.

Bassam said:

"It is interesting to note that James White commits according to David Wood's logic 'a tu quo que fallacy'

James White insists that Nadir must be following the same standard of textual criticism for the New Testament as he does for the Quran and he claims that this is relevant to the debate."

Your right Bassam. It should be called what it is. Nadir clearly did it in his debate with Shamoun (and his attempt to defend it was desperate), White clearly did it in his debate with Ally. If White does so in his debate with Nadir it will yet again be the fallacy of Tu Quoque.; February 4, 2008 at 3:08 AM
David Wood said...: Christianjr4,

As I said, there is often a difference between pointing out a methodological inconsistency and just committing the tu quoque fallacy (although there can also be some overlap). I think there is an important role for the latter.

James and Nadir are debating whether the New Testament has been corrupted. Now suppose Nadir were to prove, through early, previously unknown documents, that the Gospels we have today are completely different from the Gospels of the first century. I agree that it would be absolutely irrelevant for James to say, "Well, the Qur'an suffers from the same problem," since all he would be doing is saying that both texts have been corrupted (and, therefore, that the New Testament has been corrupted).

Nevertheless, Muslims have a tendency to make very odd claims that non-Muslims would not agree with. Here I believe that the easiest way to point out the problem is by using their own scriptures as an example. For instance, if a Muslim says, "Well, there are textual variants in the manuscripts of the New Testament; hence, it's not the word of God and has been corrupted," I think it would be quite significant to point out that there are textual variants in manuscripts of the Qur'an. The point of bringing up the Qur'an would not be to say, "Well, you've got the same problem, so they've both been corrupted." Rather, the point would be to say, "This is an extremely odd claim (i.e. that textual variants demonstrate wholesale corruption). I don't agree with this claim, my Muslim friend, and, more importantly, neither do you! Since this would also rule out the Qur'an as scripture, you can't possibly believe what you're saying!"

Here the point would be to force the Muslim to drop a strange claim about what constitutes corruption. This seems quite valid to me.

James has an additional reason for pointing out inconsistencies. He says that it proves that the opponent is being irrational, which the audience would want to know. I have mixed feelings about this approach; however, I would leave it up to the debater as to whether he wants to use this approach. I would not try to make rules saying he can't show that his opponent is being biased.

In other words, I agree with James that it is important to point out when an opponent is being illogical. But if that opponent has genuinely proven a point, I would agree with the opponent when he says, "Ah, but that's the tu quoque fallacy," whether it refutes his own position or not.; February 4, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Sunil said...: James White point is just that it is normal to expect some variations when hundreds of copies are made (especially hand written). With textual criticism, we are able to identify the text. If some one says that it is a problem, then one is right in showing that how variants do occur and if the variants are forcefully burnt/suppressed, it is then a real problem because we now have lost the means of using textual criticism to identify the text. This is what James White argued with Shabbir Ally. This is certainly not a 'a tu quo que fallacy'. Here James White is not only asserting how/why we have the text of NT, but also that Quran faces a real problem with respect to the text.

If OT/NT preached expansionist wars to establish religion, use of the sword in this purpose of imposing religion based rule of law on the conquered nations, imposition of the Jiziya as a mark of 'humiliation', etc then it would be wrong on part of Sam to have questioned it in Islamic theology/history. The OT does say that some specific groups of people had been eliminated by God for specific reasons, but that is not the same as a guidance on how we ought to live (neither for a Jew nor a Christian). For a Christian, the guidance of how we ought to live is given by the life/message of Jesus/NT. Muhammad's life violated the life/message of Jesus in almost all matters. Some of the Jews did not accept Jesus, but Jesus affirmed the OT Scriptures and the NT uses OT as basis of legitimate continuity/fulfillment. The religion of Muhammad goes against the God of OT/NT (violation of first commandment of God) - with no roots, no past, no basis, no legitimacy.; February 4, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Bassam said...: David, let me reword what you said...

For instance, if a Christian says, "Well, there are several passages in the Qur'an that seems to preach violence towards others; it's not the word of God," I think it would be quite significant to point out that there are also verses in the Bible showing that God issued violence to be committed against others. The point of bringing up the Bible would not be to say, "Well, you've got the same problem, so they've both not the word of God." Rather, the point would be to say, "This is an extremely odd claim (i.e. the fact that Islam is false because it sanctions violence against others). I don't agree with this claim, my Christian friend, and, more importantly, neither do you! Since this would also rule out the Bible as scripture, you can't possibly believe what you're saying!"

David, you are stuck. Either you admit that you are wrong, or that James is.; February 5, 2008 at 7:41 AM
Sunil said...: There is a difference between God punishing a group of people on one hand and imposing rule of religion through war/sword on the other. The final message of Muhammad is the latter. If the message of OT/NT is also the same, then the Christian has no basis to complain about islam. Even if there is any doubt/question about the OT wars, the doctrine of true spirituality, morality and salvation is made clear in the life/message of Jesus/NT. One who violates this is violating against the God of OT/NT and hence cannot claim to be a continuity. Islamic apologists, when they try to pit Muhammad/Quran against OT/NT/Jesus, they are implicitly agreeing that there is no continuity (meaning, Muhammad actually started a new religion) – they are affirming exactly the same point that the Christian is trying to say.; February 5, 2008 at 1:51 PM
David Wood said...: Bassam,

I can't figure out why this is so difficult for you to understand.

(1) Suppose the topic is "Was Muhammad Polygamous?" Here it would make absolutely no sense to argue, "Well, there's polygamy in the Bible, too." Whether anyone else is polygamous is completely irrelevant to whether Muhammad was polygamous. Hence, any mention of the Bible would be irrelevant.

(2) Suppose a Christian says, "There's violence in the Qur'an; therefore, it can't be the word of God." (Note: I know of absolutely no one who makes such a claim.) Here it would be perfectly relevant to point out that there is violence in the Bible, since this would force the Christian to modify his claim.

(3) Suppose a Christian says, "I find it difficult to believe that God's final message, for all mankind, would include the violence we find in the Qur'an." Here it would be irrelevant to say that there's violence in the Bible, since, whatever the Bible says, the message for all mankind is not to be violent towards one another. That is, the Christian isn't being inconsistent when he applies this principle.

(4) Suppose a Muslims says, "There are textual variants in the manuscripts of the Bible; therefore, it can't be the Word of God." It makes perfect sense to challenge this by pointing to the Qur'an, forcing the Muslim to change his claim.

So what do we have here? If a Christian or a Muslim is using a principle that he can't possibly believe, then an opponent should be able to point it out. But if the Christian or Muslim is not using such a principle, then pointing a finger back at the person is irrelevant.

Now when, may I ask, have I applied a principle inconsistently? If you would stop and think about what I'm saying (instead of writing without thinking), you would see that I'm completely consistent in my methodology.; February 5, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Bassam said...: hmm David, so you are saying that when Christians tirelessly and with soooooooo much effort point out arguments such as Islam intending to conquer the world, impose harshness on non Muslims, allows pedophilia and sex with slave women - that none of these are evidences that Islam is a false religion?

Give me a break, dude. Maybe, thats the case with you (extreme minority).; February 5, 2008 at 10:13 PM
jebd said...: David thanks for breaking down to clarify what tu-quo-que really means. It surely explains the difference between methodology inconsistency and tu-quo-que.

Bassam I am not sure what you were trying to convey with your last post. By implication Davids 3rd point "(3) Suppose a Christian says, "I find it difficult to believe that God's final message, for all mankind, would include the violence we find in the Qur'an." Here it would be irrelevant to say that there's violence in the Bible, since, whatever the Bible says, the message for all mankind is not to be violent towards one another. That is, the Christian isn't being inconsistent when he applies this principle."... already addresses your confusion.; February 6, 2008 at 9:55 PM