Sam Shamoun

Christian apologist David Wood debated Nadir Ahmed on the topic, "God: Trinity or Tauheed" (*).

It is not our purpose to offer an assessment of the debate itself.(1) Rather, we want to address five specific claims made by Nadir Ahmed in the debate since it demonstrates the type of apologist he is and the level of argumentation he is capable of producing in support of Islam.

For the convenience of our readers we have broken down our article into five sections:

1. Is it a Blood Clot or Not?
2. The Issue of Iram
3. When the Walls Come Tumbling Down
4. Did Muhammad live up to God’s Moral Values?
5. Did Muhammad live up to his own Moral standards?
6. Concluding Statements

1. Is it a Blood Clot or Not?

In his first rebuttal period Nadir Ahmed claimed that the Quran doesn’t say that a human embryo becomes a blood clot during a certain stage in its development. Rather, it only appears as one!

"What the Quran is saying that its, ah, in appearance its like a blood clot! And if you look at the stages of embryology there is a stage over there where it does appear like blood clot. And this is not just my opinion, but several embryologists have also confirmed that like Dr. Keith Moore. There, is in appearance, like a blood clot."

Note carefully that Nadir’s response indirectly admits that if the Quran does say that a human being becomes a clot at some stage then it is wrong, and conflicts with modern scientific facts.

Now does the Quran merely say that the embryo resembles a clot? Or does it actually say it becomes a clot? We let the Quran answer the question, along with a few Muslim exegetes

Here is the first text:

Was he not a Nutfah (mixed male and female discharge of semen) poured forth? Then he BECAME AN 'Alaqa (A CLOT); then (Allah) shaped and fashioned (him) in due proportion. And made him in two sexes, male and female. S. 75:37-39 Hilali-Khan

The above reference doesn’t say that it looks like a clot, but that it becomes one, a point which the oldest Muslim commentators agree:

(Then he became a clot) then he BECAME CLOTTED BLOOD; (then (Allah) shaped) him a living being (and fashioned) him with two hands, two feet, two eyes, two ears as well as with all the other members, and also placed in him the spirit. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source)

Then it, the drop of semen, BECAME A CLOT; then He, God, created, from it man, and proportioned [him], making the parts of his body upright, (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

and made of it, of the drop of semen that BECAME A BLOOD-CLOT, then an embryo, a [small] mass of flesh, the two sexes, the two kinds, the male and the female, at times coming together and at times each being on their own. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

<Then he became an `Alaqah; then shaped and fashioned in due proportion.> meaning, he BECAME A CLOT, then a lump of flesh, then he was formed and the soul was blown into him. Then he became a perfect creation with healthy limbs, as either a male or a female by the permission and decree of Allah… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The second text:

He, it is Who has created you (Adam) FROM dust, then FROM a Nutfah [mixed semen drops of male and female discharge (i.e. Adam's offspring)] then FROM A CLOT (A PIECE OF COAGULATED BLOOD), then brings you forth as children, then (makes you grow) to reach the age of full strength, and afterwards to be old (men and women), though some among you die before, and that you reach an appointed term, in order that you may understand. S. 40:67 Hilali-Khan

We assume that Nadir will have no problem admitting that, according to the Quran, the embryo develops from semen drops. By the same token he should have no problem acknowledging that humans were also made from a clot according to the Quran. Note how the mufassirin interpreted this verse:

(He it is Who created you from dust) He created you FROM Adam and Adam is FROM dust, (then from a drop (of seed)) then He created you FROM the sperm drops of your fathers (then from a clot) then FROM a CLOT OF BLOOD, (then brings you forth) FROM your mothers' wombs (as a child) as a young child, (then (ordaineth) that ye attain full strength) 18 to 30 years old (and afterward that ye become old men) after having attained your full strength (though some among you die before) before the age of puberty or before reaching old age (and that ye reach an appointed term) the end of your lifespan, (that haply ye may understand) that haply you may believe in resurrection after death. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

He it is Who created you FROM dust, by having created your father Adam from it, then FROM a drop [of sperm], then FROM a blood-clot, CONGEALED BLOOD, then He brings you forth as infants, then, He sustains you, that you may come of age, [until you have attained] your full strength - [this being] from the age of thirty to forty - then that you may become aged (read shuyukhan or shiyukhan)- though there are some of you who die earlier, that is, before coming of age or becoming aged. He does this to you so that you may live [on], and that you may complete an appointed term, a defined length of time, that perhaps you might understand, the proofs of [His] Oneness and thus become believers. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

<It is He, Who has created you from dust, then from a Nutfah then FROM A CLOT (A PIECE OF COAGULATED BLOOD>, then brings you forth as an infant, then (makes you grow) to reach the age of full strength, and afterwards to be old.) meaning, He is the One Who Alone, with no partner or associate, causes you to pass through these different stages, and this happens in accordance with His command, will and decree. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The third text:

And indeed We created man (Adam) out of an extract of clay (water and earth). Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge) (and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman). Then We made the Nutfah INTO A CLOT (A PIECE OF THICK COAGULATED BLOOD), then We made THE CLOT into a little lump of flesh, then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We brought it forth as another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of creators. S. 23:12-14 Hilali-Khan

(Then fashioned We) then We TRANSFORMED (the drop) INTO (A CLOT) for another forty days, (then fashioned We) then We TRANSFORMED (THE CLOT) into (a little lump) for forty days, (then fashioned We) the We TRNASFORMED (the little lump) into (bones) without flesh, (then clothed the bones with flesh) joints, veins and other things, (and then produced it another creation) and then We placed in it the spirit. (So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators) the Best of Transformers! (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Then We TRANSFORMED the drop [of semen] INTO A CLOT, CONGEALED BLOOD. Then We TRANSFORMED THE CLOT INTO A [little] LUMP OF FLESH (mudgha), a piece of flesh, about the size of what one would be able to chew (ma yumdagh). Then We TRANSFORMED the lump of flesh into bones. Then We clothed the bones with flesh (a variant reading in both instances [instead of the plurals 'izaman and al-'izama, 'the bones'] is [singular] 'azman [and 'al-'azma], 'the bone'; and in all three instances above khalaqna, means 'We made it become' [as opposed to 'We created']). Then We produced him as [yet] another creature, by breathing into him [Our] Spirit. So blessed be God, the best of creators!, that is, [the best of] determiners (the specified noun for ahsana, 'the best', has been omitted because it is obvious: khalqan, 'in terms of creation'). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and emphasis ours)

<Then We made the Nutfah into a clot,> meaning, ‘then We made the Nutfah, which is the water gushing forth that comes from the loins of man, i.e., his back, and the ribs of woman, i.e., the bones of her chest, between the clavicle and the breast. THEN IT BECOMES A RED CLOT, LIKE AN ELONGATED CLOT.’ `Ikrimah said, "THIS IS BLOOD." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Here is the fourth and final text:

O mankind! If you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then verily! We have created you (i.e. Adam) from dust, then from a Nutfah (mixed drops of male and female sexual discharge i.e. offspring of Adam), then FROM A CLOT (A PIECE OF THICK COAGULATED BLOOD) then from a little lump of flesh, some formed and some unformed (miscarriage), that We may make (it) clear to you (i.e. to show you Our Power and Ability to do what We will). And We cause whom We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed term, then We bring you out as infants, then (give you growth) that you may reach your age of full strength. And among you there is he who dies (young), and among you there is he who is brought back to the miserable old age, so that he knows nothing after having known. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down water (rain) on it, it is stirred (to life), it swells and puts forth every lovely kind (of growth). S. 22:5 Hilali-Khan

(O mankind!) i.e. O people of Mecca (if ye are in doubt concerning the Resurrection) after death, then reflect upon your initial creation, for bringing you back to life is not more difficult than your initial creation, (then lo! We have created you from dust) We have created you from Adam and Adam is from dust, (then) We created you after that (from a drop of seed, then FROM A CLOT) OF BLOOD after the drop of semen, (then from a little lump of flesh) AFTER THE CLOT OF BLOOD (shapely) in a perfect shape (and shapeless) when miscarriage takes place, (that We may make (it) clean for you) in the Qur'an after you are created… (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

O mankind, in other words, [O] people of Mecca, if you are in doubt about the Resurrection, then lo! [consider that] We have created you, that is, [We have created] your origin - Adam - FROM dust then, We created his progeny, FROM a drop, a sperm-drop, then FROM a clot, congealed blood, then FROM a [little] lump of flesh (mudgha), a piece of flesh, the size of what one would [be able to] chew (ma yumdagh), partly formed, shaped, complete in form, and partly unformed, that is, incomplete in form, that We may make clear to you, the perfect nature of Our power, that you might [then] infer from this initial act of creation, the [reality of its future] restoration… (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

<then from a clot then from a little lump of flesh> if the Nutfah establishes itself in the woman's womb, it stays like that for forty days, then more material is added to it and IT CHANGES INTO A RED CLOT, by the leave of Allah, and it remains like that for forty days. Then it changes and becomes a lump of flesh, like a piece of meat with no form or shape. Then it starts to take on a form and shape, developing a head, arms, chest, stomach, thighs, legs, feet and all its members. Sometimes a woman miscarries before the fetus is formed and sometimes she miscarries after it has formed… It was recorded in the Two Sahihs that Ibn Mas`ud said, "The Messenger of Allah, who is the true and truly inspired one, told us…

((Every one of you is collected in the womb of his mother for the first forty days, and then he BECOMES A CLOT for another forty days, and then a lump of flesh for another forty days. Then Allah sends an angel to write four words: He writes his provision, his deeds, his life span, and whether he will be blessed or wretched. Then he blows the soul into him.))" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The foregoing makes it abundantly clear that the Quran DOES NOT say that a human being merely resembles a clot, but that it actually becomes one! This means that David Wood was correct and the Quran contains a gross scientific blunder since it goes against modern scientific facts.

For more on the Quran’s gross scientific blunders regarding the developing embryo please consult the following articles:

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/alaqa.html

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo.html

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/embryo2.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/embryo.htm

http://answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/embryo_ra.htm

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellintro.htm

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp5.htm#embryology

2. The Issue of Iram

One of the proofs for the Quran’s inspiration proposed by Nadir is that it refers to a city named Iram (Q. 89:7), which was mentioned in the tablets of Ebla, and that were just recently discovered. Nadir asserts that this city was unheard of by historians for centuries and Muhammad couldn't have possibly known about its existence. Thus, Muslims have archaeological proof that the Qur'an is from God. 

There are several problems with this argument, one of which backfires against Nadir since it discredits the Quran.

In the first place, Nadir erroneously assumes that Iram was a lost city unknown to Muhammad and his contemporaries but provides no evidence to substantiate this claim. After all, just because a city may have been unknown to subsequent generations doesn’t mean that it was not known at the time of Muhammad. One can just as readily assume that there were records available to Muhammad, which are now lost to us, that spoke of Iram and accounts for why it is mentioned in the Quran. In fact, one of the earliest Islamic sources states that there were people even prior to Muhammad who knew of this city:

… Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they themselves were polytheists and idolators. They had often raided them in their district and whenever bad feeling arose the Jews used to say to them, ‘A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill you by his aid as Ad and Iram perished.’… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 197-198; bold and italic emphasis ours)

The above reference demonstrates that, contrary to Nadir’s assertion, Iram was known to the people of Arabia. In fact, not only was it not unknown, its destruction had apparently become proverbial in that region of the world. Therefore, how can this information provide evidence for the Quran being God’s Word when other people knew about it?

What makes this all the more ironic is that Nadir kept ranting that no one knew about this city, and yet these Jews clearly knew of it. Thus, if this proves inspiration then this means that the Jews living in Arabia before Muhammad were the ones inspired and that Muhammad merely plagiarized this info from them, much like he plagiarized other Jewish stories and fables (*)!

But this leads us to our second point. Nadir erroneously assumes that the Iram that was mentioned in the recently discovered tablets of Ebla is the same as the one mentioned in the Quran. But this fails to take into account that it was common for more than one place to have the same name, such as Ur which was the name of a place near Ebla in Syria and one in Chaldea. Or the name Bosra or Basra, which during Muhammad’s time could refer to a place either in Syria or Iraq.

In light of this, how does Nadir know that the Iram that was mentioned in these tablets is actually the one referred to in the Quran? What evidence does he have to substantiate this claim?

For more on the issue of Iram please consult this article.

Third, if archaeology can be used to prove the authority of the Quran then it can also be used to falsify it. The fact of the matter is that the Quran contains many details which do not comport with the evidence furnished by ancient discoveries and artifacts. Here are a few examples where the Quran is clearly wrong about the past: (1) Selling Joseph for some Dirhams before coins were even invented (*), (2) Having a Samaritan lead Israel astray with a golden calf when no Samaritans existed at that time (*), (3) Crucifixion during the time of Pharaoh (*), (4) The Quran alludes to a non-existent Temple which Muhammad supposedly traveled to (1, 2).

Thus, according to Nadir’s own criterion the Quran fails the test and is therefore a false book composed by a false prophet.

Finally, since Nadir appeals to archaeology to vindicate the Quran he must be consistent and use it to see whether this same field provides any evidence for the authenticity of the Holy Bible, specifically the NT. The fact is that archaeology has uncovered cities, places, and persons mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, thereby providing corroboration that the Holy Scriptures are historically accurate and reliable.

As an example of the accuracy of the NT, during the repairing of a sewage pipe in the old city of Jerusalem some workers found the Pool of Siloam which is mentioned in John 9:7, 11. One source writes that:

"Scholars have said that there wasn’t a Pool of Siloam and that John was using a religious conceit" to illustrate a point, said New Testament scholar James H. Charlesworth of the Princeton Theological Seminary. "Now, we have found the Pool of Siloam… exactly where John said it was." A Gospel that was thought to be "pure theology is now shown TO BE GROUNDED IN HISTORY," he said. (World News, "Biblical Pool of Siloam uncovered in Jerusalem", 9 August 2005; source; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

As noted Reformed Protestant scholar and apologist James R. White sarcastically puts it:

11 August

Pool of Siloam Discovered in Jerusalem

Oddly enough, it was found right where...John said it was. How can that be, since John is not historical? Oh sorry, been reading too much Jesus Seminar stuff lately. (Source)

Luke is another Bible author who has ample archaeological evidence supporting his amazing historical accuracy. As the online Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Very few writers have ever had their accuracy put to such a severe test as St. Luke, on account of the wide field covered by his writings, and the consequent liability (humanly speaking) of making mistakes; and on account of the fierce attacks to which he has been subjected.

It was the fashion, during the nineteenth century, with German rationalists and their imitators, to ridicule the "blunders" of Luke, but that is all being rapidly changed by the recent progress of archæological research. Harnack does not hesitate to say that these attacks were shameful, and calculated to bring discredit, not on the Evangelist, but upon his critics, and Ramsay is but voicing the opinion of the best modern scholars when he calls St. Luke a great and accurate historian. Very few have done so much as this latter writer, in his numerous works and in his articles in "The Expositor", to vindicate the extreme accuracy of St. Luke. Wherever archæology has afforded the means of testing St. Luke's statements, they have been found to be correct; and this gives confidence that he is equally reliable where no such corroboration is as yet available. For some of the details see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, where a very full bibliography is given.

For the sake of illustration, one or two examples may here be given:

(1) Sergius Paulus, Proconsul in Cyprus

St. Luke says, Acts, xiii, that when St. Paul visited Cyprus (in the reign of Claudius) Sergius Paulus was proconsul (anthupatos) there. Grotius asserted that this was an abuse of language, on the part of the natives, who wished to flatter the governor by calling him proconsul, instead of proprætor (antistrategos), which he really was; and that St. Luke used the popular appellation. Even Baronius (Annales, ad Ann. 46) supposed that, though Cyprus was only a prætorian province, it was honoured by being ruled by the proconsul of Cilicia, who must have been Sergius Paulus. But this is all a mistake. Cato captured Cyprus, Cicero was proconsul of Cilicia and Cyprus in 52 B.C.; Mark Antony gave the island to Cleopatra; Augustus made it a prætorian province in 27 B.C., but in 22 B.C. he transferred it to the senate, and it became again a proconsular province. This latter fact is not stated by Strabo, but it is mentioned by Dion Cassius (LIII). In Hadrian's time it was once more under a proprætor, while under Severus it was again administered by a proconsul. There can be no doubt that in the reign of Claudius, when St. Paul visited it, Cyprus was under a proconsul (anthupatos), as stated by St. Luke. Numerous coins have been discovered in Cyprus, bearing the head and name of Claudius on one side, and the names of the proconsuls of Cyprus on the other. A woodcut engraving of one is given in Conybeare and Howson's "St. Paul", at the end of chapter v. On the reverse it has: EPI KOMINOU PROKAU ANTHUPATOU: KUPRION--"Money of the Cyprians under Cominius Proclus, Proconsul." The head of Claudius (with his name) is figured on the other side. General Cesnola discovered a long inscription on a pedestal of white marble, at Solvi, in the north of the island, having the words: EPI PAULOU ANTHUPATOU--"Under Paulus Proconsul." Lightfoot, Zochler, Ramsay, Knabenbauer, Zahn, and Vigouroux hold that this was the actual (Sergius) Paulus of Acts, xiii, 7.

(2) The Politarchs in Thessalonica

An excellent example of St. Luke's accuracy is afforded by his statement that rulers of Thessalonica were called "politarchs" (politarchai—Acts 17:6, 8). The word is not found in the Greek classics; but there is a large stone in the British Museum, which was found in an arch in Thessalonica, containing an inscription which is supposed to date from the time of Vespasian. Here we find the word used by St. Luke together with the names of several such politarchs, among them being names identical with some of St. Paul's converts: Sopater, Gaius, Secundus. Burton in "American Journal of Theology" (July, 1898) has drawn attention to seventeen inscriptions proving the existence of politarchs in ancient times. Thirteen were found in Macedonia, and five were discovered in Thessalonica, dating from the middle of the first to the end of the second century.

(3) Knowledge of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe

The geographical, municipal, and political knowledge of St. Luke, when speaking of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, is fully borne out by recent research (see Ramsay, "St. Paul the Traveller", and other references given in GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE).

(4) Knowledge of Philippian customs

He is equally sure when speaking of Philippi, a Roman colony, where the duumviri were called "prætors" (strategoi—Acts 16:20, 35), a lofty title which duumviri assumed in Capua and elsewhere, as we learn from Cicero and Horace (Sat., I, v, 34). They also had lictors (rabsouchoi), after the manner of real prætors.

(5) References to Ephesus, Athens, and Corinth

His references to Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, are altogether in keeping with everything that is now known of these cities. Take a single instance: "In Ephesus St. Paul taught in the school of Tyrannus, in the city of Socrates he discussed moral questions in the market-place. How incongruous it would seem if the methods were transposed! But the narrative never makes a false step amid all the many details as the scene changes from city to city; and that is the conclusive proof that it is a picture of real life" (Ramsay, op. cit., 238). St. Luke mentions (Acts 18:2) that when St. Paul was at Corinth the Jews had been recently expelled from Rome by Claudius, and this is confirmed by a chance statement of Suetonius. He tells us (ibid., 12) that Gallio was then proconsul in Corinth (the capital of the Roman province of Achaia). There is no direct evidence that he was proconsul in Achaia, but his brother Seneca writes that Gallio caught a fever there, and went on a voyage for his health. The description of the riot at Ephesus (Acts 19) brings together, in the space of eighteen verses, an extraordinary amount of knowledge of the city, that is fully corroborated by numerous inscriptions, and representations on coins, medals, etc., recently discovered. There are allusions to the temple of Diana (one of the seven wonders of the world), to the fact that Ephesus gloried in being her temple-sweeper her caretaker (neokoros), to the theatre as the place of assembly for the people, to the town clerk (grammateus), to the Asiarchs, to sacrilegious (ierosuloi), to proconsular sessions, artificers, etc. The ecclesia (the usual word in Ephesus for the assembly of the people) and the grammateus or town-clerk (the title of a high official frequent on Ephesian coins) completely puzzled Cornelius a Lapide, Baronius, and other commentators, who imagined the ecclesia meant a synagogue, etc. (see Vigouroux, "Le Nouveau Testament et les Découvertes Archéologiques", Paris, 1890).

(6) The Shipwreck

The account of the voyage and shipwreck described in Acts (xxvii, xxvii) is regarded by competent authorities on nautical matters as a marvellous instance of accurate description (see Smith's classical work on the subject, "Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul" (4th ed., London, 1880). Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 186) says: "Extrema duo capita habent descriptionem clarissimam itineris maritimi quod Paulus in Italiam fecit: quæ descriptio ab homine harum rerum perito judicata est monumentum omnium pretiosissimum, quæ rei navalis ex tote antiquitate nobis relicta est. V. Breusing, 'Die Nautik der Alten' (Bremen, 1886)." See also Knowling " The Acts of the Apostles" in "Exp. Gr. Test." (London, 1900). (Source; bold emphasis ours)

This is where Nadir Ahmed runs into problems: since the archaeological data has confirmed many details of the Holy Bible this means that the Bible writers can be trusted in areas where they cannot be tested, i.e. Jesus’ virgin birth, his miracles etc. To put it simply, since archaeology has confirmed many of the historical events found in the Bible, and no data exists which contradicts or refutes its historicity, this means that we are to give the Bible writers the benefit of doubt in areas where there is no independent attestation for specific events reported therein.

Hence, Nadir now faces the dilemma that not only is archaeology not on the side of the Quran he must also contend with the fact that this field actually supports the historical accuracy of the Bible over against the Muslim scripture. This means that whenever the Quran contradicts the Holy Bible on key, essential points, i.e. God’s nature, the Person of Christ, his crucifixion, the plan of salvation etc., it must be rejected and set aside.

3. When the Walls Come Tumbling Down

Nadir claims that the Quran predicted in Q. 59:14 that the Jews would fight Muslims behind walls, which was just recently fulfilled when in 2002 "the terrorist state of Israel" built one of the largest walls to fight and terrorize the Palestinians.

Let us look at the immediate context of this particular text to see if Nadir is correct, or did he lie and slander Jews by his anti-Semitic statements:

Hast thou not regarded the hypocrites, saying to their brothers of the People of the Book who disbelieve, 'If you are expelled, we will go forth with you, and we will never obey anyone in regard to you. If you are fought against, we will help you.' And God bears witness that they are truly liars. If those are expelled, they will not go forth with them, and if they are fought against, they will not help them. Even if they helped them, they would surely turn their backs, then they would not be helped. Why, you arouse greater fear in their hearts than God; that is because they are a people who understand not. They will not fight against you all together except in fortified cities, or from behind walls. Their valour is great, among themselves; you think of them as a host; but their hearts are scattered; that is because they are a people who have no sense. S. 59:11-14 Arberry

The context mentions the hypocrites and the People of the Book, but doesn’t tell us whether Q. 59:14 refers to the former or to the latter, and if the latter whether this means the Jews or Christians, or even both! In order to find out the answer we must consult the hadith and Sira literature, sources which help expose Nadir as a deceiver and anti-Semite:

(They) i.e. Banu Qurayzah and Banu'l-Nadir (will not fight against you in a body save in fortified villages or from behind walls) or if there is between you and them walls. (Their adversity among themselves is very great) He says: their fighting against each other is great, for they fought against their own folk and not against the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions. (Ye think of them as a whole) united (whereas their hearts are divers) whereas they differ a great deal. (That) differing and betrayal (is because they are a folk who have no sense) is because they do not understand Allah's command and divine Oneness. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Notice that this source applies Q. 59 to the Jews of Muhammad’s time, not to a future battle between Muslims and Jews! Here is what Ibn Kathir wrote regarding Q. 59:

Which was revealed in Al-Madinah

Ibn `Abbas used to call this chapter, `Surah Bani An-Nadir.’ Sa`id bin Mansur recorded that Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "I asked Ibn `Abbas about Surat Al-Hashr and he said, `It was revealed about Bani An-Nadir.’" Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded it using another chain of narration from Ibn `Abbas. Al-Bukhari also recorded it from Abu `Awanah, from Abu Bishr from Sa`id bin Jubayr, who said, "I asked Ibn `Abbas, `Surat Al-Hashr' He said, `Surah Bani An-Nadir.’" (Source; underline emphasis ours)

The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered

Allah said….

<He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the People of the Scripture> referring to the Jewish tribe of Bani An-Nadir, according to Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Az-Zuhri and several others. When the Messenger of Allah migrated to Al-Madinah, he made a peace treaty with the Jews stipulating that he would not fight them and they would not fight him. They soon betrayed the treaty that they made with Allah's Messenger. Therefore, Allah sent His torment down on them; it can never be averted, and His appointed destiny touched them; it can never be resisted. The Prophet forced them to evacuate and abandon THEIR FORTIFIED FORTS that Muslims did not think they would ever control. The Jews thought that THEIR FORTIFICATIONS will save them from Allah's torment, but they did not help them against Allah in the least. Then, that which they did not expect came to them from Allah, and Allah's Messenger forced them to leave Al-Madinah. Some of them went to Adhri`at in the area of Ash-Sham, which is the area of the grand Gathering and Resurrection, while others went to Khaybar. The Prophet allowed them to evacuate THEIR FORTS and take whatever their camels could carry. They destroyed the property that they could not carry…

After the battle of Badr, the Quraysh idolators wrote to the Jews of Al-Madinah, `You have armor AND FORTS! You should fight our citizen or we will do such and such to you, and nothing will prevent us from acquiring your women.’ The news of this letter also reached the Prophet and Bani An-Nadir intended to betray their treaty. Bani An-Nadir sent a message to the Prophet asking him to come with thirty of his Companions to meet thirty of their rabbis half way, from either side. They said that the rabbis would listen to the Prophet and if they believe in him, the rest of Bani An-Nadir would believe. They intended to kill the Messenger, and Allah informed His Messenger of this plot before they could harm him. The next day, the Prophet gathered his forces and laid siege to their area, saying to them…

<<By Allah ! You will not be safe until and unless you renew your peace treaty with me.>> They refused to do so, and the Prophet fought them the rest of that day. The next morning, the Prophet laid siege to the tribe of Bani Qurayzah and left Bani An-Nadir alone that day. The Prophet ordered Bani Qurayzah to sign a new treaty of peace, and they accepted. The Prophet left Bani Qurayzah and went back to Bani An-Nadir with his forces and fought them until they agreed to surrender in return for safe passage out of Al-Madinah. Bani An-Nadir evacuated Al-Madinah and took with them all whatever their camels could carry from their furniture, including even the wood and the doors to their houses. The date trees of Bani An-Nadir were granted to the Messenger by Allah when He said… (Source; capital an underline emphasis ours)

The False Promise of Support the Hypocrites gave to the Jews

Allah states that the hypocrites, `Abdullah bin Ubayy and his like, sent a messenger to Bani An-Nadir promising them help… Allah then said…

<They fight not against you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls.> meaning, they will not fight Muslims except from behind besieged FORTIFIED FORTS, because of their cowardice and fear of Muslims. They only fight when they have to defend themselves <even though they threaten Muslims of reprisals>…

Allah said…

(They are like their immediate predecessors; they tasted the evil result of their conduct, and for them a painful torment.) referring to the Jewish tribe of Bani Qaynuqa`, according to Ibn `Abbas, Qatadah and Muhammad bin Ishaq. (Source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Note the constant reference to fortified forts or fortification, which obviously refers to walls which surrounded the territory of Banu an-Nadir. What this shows is that Q. 59:14 is referring to the Jews of Muhammad’s day that hid behind the walls of their cities, not to the Jews of the twentieth-first century. Nadir lied to his audience and distorted what even his own so-called authentic Islamic sources say is the meaning and application of Q. 59:14. We will have more to say of Nadir’s debate tactics in our concluding section.

4. Did Muhammad live up to God’s Moral Values?

Nadir Ahmed chided David Wood for criticizing Muhammad’s marriage to a nine-year old since Wood’s argument wasn’t based on God’s ethical standards but on secular human understanding of morality. Ahmed asserted:

"And also this shows a kind of hypocritical approach; because you see when David Wood and other Christian apologists, when they debate the atheist, the atheist argue that human society, that is sufficient for moral values. And all human, moral values come from human society. We don’t need a god for that! But the God-believers, like David Wood and myself, we are you[sic] know if without a god you cannot have any meaningful morality. Moral values are nothing more than your personal opinions and nothing more than just your whims. Thus, morality, life is all useless and worthless without a god. But tonight he is taking the position of the atheist, he’s saying, he umm, he objects to the prophet Muhammad, which actually now he has to also reject his own God, because of his, because his human society is now the basis of morality. If he comes back and says, "No, God is the author of morality," then I challenge him from the Bible. I have a Bible here, show me where, where there is an age limit as far as you can marry. But if he cannot produce that then he has no basis for moral argument tonight against the prophet Muhammad, because your moral arguments must come from God. That is the basis of our moral values. We have to be consistent, when we debate the atheist we can’t switch gears, ok, and then, and argue that. Human society, and both me and David Wood would wholeheartedly agree is not sufficient for moral values. Without a god moral values are meaningless, humans are meaning, are, are just useless, and that is why this is the evidence for God. We have to be consistent David on this point, ok. So I challenge, if you, if you do have a moral argument against the prophet of Islam then please show me from the book of God; show me God’s moral values, not your own or, or white bread’s society."

In the second rebuttal period he claims that Jesus in the Old Testament (specifically Numbers 31:17-18) sanctioned relations with girls 12 or younger: