Answering Muslims: James White vs. Sami Zaatari

Home

Saturday, October 4, 2008

James White vs. Sami Zaatari

James and Sami will be debating in November, but it seems that Sami has launched a personal attack against James (going so far as to call James an "ignoramus"!). James, as usual, has obliterated the unfounded and completely irrational attack here.

Sami says that he was planning to go easy on James (laugh, laugh), but that now he plans to "annihilate" him. What does Sami mean here? Well, I doubt that his arguments are going to get any better. So he must simply mean that he's going to get meaner and nastier in his presentation. I wonder if he's going to come at James the way he comes at my friends at Answering Islam. Here's how Sami "annihilates" Jochen Katz:

[NOTE: Here I had originally posted some words by Sami. The point was to show the source of his irrational attacks against Christianity. His words prove that he hates Jesus and God's Spirit so much that he simply cannot discuss these issues fairly. However, I will post these and other comments by Sami in a separate post where my point is more clear. Several people simply did not understand my meaning here. I will give it a fuller discussion later.]

These are the words of a man who thinks that James White is unreasonable. Welcome to Islam, my friends.

One thing is worthy of note in Sami's illogical attack. Notice the chain of events. Step One: James posts a letter from a soldier. Step Two: Sami concludes that Christianity has declared war on Islam. Though Sami's amazing ability to reinterpret and distort his own religious texts allows him to be a peaceful Muslim, we see that he, no less than his more violent counterparts, flies off the handle at the slightest provocation. In Sami's mind, posting an email by a soldier equals promoting the war in Iraq. Promoting the war in Iraq, for Sami, equals promoting war against Islam. A Christian fighting in a war equals Christianity being a religion of violence. And this is how the peaceful Muslims interpret things! Is it any wonder that Muslims who aren't as quick to reinterpret Muhammad's words resort to violence at the slightest hint of an affront to their religion?

Posted by David Wood at 1:08 PM

Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

Labels: James White, Sami Zaatari

21 comments:

Lane Chaplin said...: This is about as amusing as that Friday night in Bellflower when Sami declared victory for himself saying basically that he defeated three of our top apologists and when you have truth on your side, that's just what happens. Give me a break. I think what we have here is a serious case of pride mixed with ignorance. In other words, if you use enough rhetoric, perhaps the other side won't call your bluff.; October 4, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Lane,

Another defender of the Cult following of AOMIN. A truly impartial comment!

David, is Dr. White incapable of defending himself firstly? Secondly what kind of ad hominem attack and strawman argument is this that you have chosen to deposit. What the hell do Sami's previous correspondance with Katz or Shamoun (who he has made peace with if I'm not mistaken) is this?

Perhaps you should post Nabeel's debate with Sami up here along with the rest so we can see the noble behaviour of a Christian apologist, and someone who has been regenerated by the holy spirit. Also, why not post some of Sam Shamoun's previous comments on Paltalk that can be found in snippits or his calling of another Muslim Apologist a terrorist? (Note he has apologised for this)

So why the inconsistency?; October 4, 2008 at 7:02 PM
David Wood said...: Oh boy. I just responded to your complaining in the comments section of my newest post, and then I come here and find the same thing.

Sami attacked James in a completely irrational manner. I draw attention to it, since I've debated Sami several times and will continue to do so. Sami is attacking James for being irrational, so I post some of Sami's attacks on Christians, to show that Sami is far from reasonable. You ask whether James can defend himself, even though he already has on his blog. You're also completely inconsistent, because here you are defending Sami (and can't he defend himself?). To top it all off, you ask why I'm bringing up Sami's comments in a blog post that happens to be about Sami, and yet you bring up Nabeel and Sam, as if they're relevant to the discussion (while Sami, apparently, isn't). I see why you're rushing to defend Sami, Yahya. You two have very similar thinking patterns.; October 4, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: "Oh boy. I just responded to your complaining in the comments section of my newest post, and then I come here and find the same thing."
Not that my comment here really pertains to the one above though.

Sami attacked James in a completely irrational manner. I draw attention to it, since I've debated Sami several times and will continue to do so.

I don't really view Sami's latest attack on James to have been highly irrational as you have so asserted, in fact I can completely understand the frustration that someone like Sami has regarding the Christian double standard. Whilst many Muslims blow this out of proportion and ascribe it to all Christians, I'm beginning to realise that Christians do spread the bible with rather deceptive methods, this man's job is to function as a soldier (despite the fact christians claim to be pacifist) and yet he feels the need to abuse vulnerable iraqis by offering them a different religion along with the aid they are bringing. Much like the "Rice Christians" whom many Missionaries speak of when discussing evangelising the Muslim world.

Sami is attacking James for being irrational, so I post some of Sami's attacks on Christians, to show that Sami is far from reasonable.

David you are irrational, so I can be irrational too! Does that reasoning hold any ground for you at all? Nope its another tu quoque.

"You ask whether James can defend himself, even though he already has on his blog."

Unfortunately, I've noticed you guys sometimes worry about your own integrity over the truth claims of your religion, why didn't you respond giving theological justification and boundaries of being in the armed forces from a Christian perspective?

"You're also completely inconsistent, because here you are defending Sami (and can't he defend himself?)"

Fair dues, I am human and I admit that this was rather inconsistent of me, in that I am defending Sami, which I acknowledge as being a lapse in my reasoning =) However one cannot help but get frustrated at a community which slams Islam for violence and yet praises participants in an unjust war, perhaps any means are justified for spreading what you hold to be truth? or am I mistaken?

"To top it all off, you ask why I'm bringing up Sami's comments in a blog post that happens to be about Sami, and yet you bring up Nabeel and Sam, as if they're relevant to the discussion (while Sami, apparently, isn't)."

I believe you are missing the finer details of my point here David, I merely stipulated that Sami's comments in the past are not pertinent to any current discussion on Sami's line of argumentation (or lack there of as you would see it) and that this is an unfairly levelled attack against him. I for one, disagree when I hear Muslims discuss things about your past, which are not pertinent to Islamic-Christian Debate.

"I see why you're rushing to defend Sami, Yahya. You two have very similar thinking patterns."

Perhaps, we do. God knows best in any case, I believe Sami is probably more sharp than I am, and May God reward his efforts. However as someone who has family in Iraq, I feel sick to stomach when I read a renowned Christian Apologist preaching absolute pacifism on one hand and encouraging an armed soldier in an unjust War.; October 4, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Sami Zaatari said...: howdy lane, where you the one who was keeping time?; October 4, 2008 at 8:39 PM
David Wood said...: Yahya,

What do you mean by "deceptive methods"? Do you mean that if I give food to someone and also preach the Gospel, I'm being deceptive??? We're simply following the example set by Jesus. He healed people and fed people, and on top of this he preached to them. He met their physical needs and their spiritual needs. Christians today try to do the same.

If I were a Christian in the Middle East (for whatever reason) I would also be trying to witness to people. I've been commanded to make disciples in all nations. Jesus didn't say, ". . . in all nations except Muslim nations." Again, I don't see any deception here.

Now let's look at the difference between a Muslim terrorist and a Christian in the military. Why is the Muslim fighting? Because Muhammad commanded his followers to fight in the name of Islam. Who are Muslims supposed to fight? Those who do not believe in Islam. Why is the Christian fighting? Because it happens to be his job, and his commanding officers have told him to fight in Iraq. Is he fighting because the people have different beliefs? Not at all. Is he fighting because the people are Muslims? Clearly not.

So the soldier finds himself stationed in Iraq. Shouldn't he use this opportunity to bring some light to a nation trapped by the false teachings of Muhammad? Of course he should. And if you didn't hate Christianity with such a passion, you would agree with me.

As for the emails by Sami, I don't think you understand what the tu quoque fallacy really is. Sami attacks James in a completely irrational manner (i.e. for posting an email written by a soldier). What's the source of Sami's irrationality? He obviously hates Christianity (like you do). I don't think Sami would deny this. Clearly, we can hate something so much that rationality goes out the window. The point of posting Sami's emails was to show how much he hates Christianity. He hates Jesus and the Gospel so much that he can't discuss these things logically. Compare this with James. James tries to be as accurate as posssible when he discusses Islam. So do I. So does Sam Shamoun. So you can attack Sam as much as you like, but the fact remains. Sam is remarkably accurate when he talks about Islam, whereas practically everything Sami says about Christianity is false.

Now, concerning "completely pacifistic" Christians, whom do you mean? I'm certainly not a complete pacifist. What I am against is fighting those with different beliefs because they aren't Christians. But Christians aren't doing that. It's your Muslim brothers and sisters who are doing that. And instead of correcting them, you're complaining about me for exposing them.; October 5, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Lane Chaplin said...: Sami, what if I am? How could that affect the arguments that have been raised against you even one iota? Good apologists answer the direct arguments that have been raised against them and/or their position. Why have you not addressed what David later pointed out as being the tu quoque fallacy which you also seem to be leaning toward in regards to me and is evidenced by you even asking that question? Why don't you address the fact that you are woefully ignorant of what Christianity even teaches? Should I declare the reason why you have not answered what has been brought against you as of yet, or are you going to concede what is already obvious to everyone who holds that true debate adheres to even the slightest bit of rationality?; October 5, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: "Yahya,

What do you mean by "deceptive methods"? Do you mean that if I give food to someone and also preach the Gospel, I'm being deceptive??? We're simply following the example set by Jesus. He healed people and fed people, and on top of this he preached to them. He met their physical needs and their spiritual needs. Christians today try to do the same."

I literally mean deceptive! If I attempt to proselytise a Christian who is going through a Nervous Breakdown, that is taking advantage of someone in a rather vulnerable situation..... Now we see this Christian Soldier coming into a War wrecked nation and attempting to convert those in the darkest of situations, who are not in positions to sit there and think rationally through.

"If I were a Christian in the Middle East (for whatever reason) I would also be trying to witness to people. I've been commanded to make disciples in all nations. Jesus didn't say, ". . . in all nations except Muslim nations." Again, I don't see any deception here."

It's really upto you David, produce "Rice Christians" if you will, but I think it's sickening to be honest.

Now let's look at the difference between a Muslim terrorist and a Christian in the military. Why is the Muslim fighting? Because Muhammad commanded his followers to fight in the name of Islam. Who are Muslims supposed to fight? Those who do not believe in Islam. Why is the Christian fighting? Because it happens to be his job, and his commanding officers have told him to fight in Iraq. Is he fighting because the people have different beliefs? Not at all. Is he fighting because the people are Muslims? Clearly not.

As someone who knows nothing about reason for revelation, context and Islamic Systematic Theology and Jurisprudence in regards to specific rules for combat. You're entirely wrong about your muslim analogy. Never apply your distorted understanding of Muhammad's teachings to me again.

So the soldier finds himself stationed in Iraq. Shouldn't he use this opportunity to bring some light to a nation trapped by the false teachings of Muhammad? Of course he should. And if you didn't hate Christianity with such a passion, you would agree with me.

The Soldier should be a moral objector and refuse to participate in the U.S illegal occupation of Iraq in the first place! Even should that fail, he's there as a soldier! Not a missionary!

If your Government would agree with what he's doing, perhaps Dr. White could give me his details so I could make an enquiry as to whether or not his job description permits him to even do that.

As for me hating christianity, nothing could be further from the truth, I find many beautiful things in the teachings of Christianity and might very well have been one had certain issues not come up in my research, However yes, I do detest the fundamentalist irrational and unhistorical form of Evangelical Christianity which is as dry as a bone and rejects so much tradition.

"As for the emails by Sami, I don't think you understand what the tu quoque fallacy really is. Sami attacks James in a completely irrational manner (i.e. for posting an email written by a soldier). What's the source of Sami's irrationality? He obviously hates Christianity (like you do)."

A Discussion with any of my former lecturers or close friends would bury your false assumption that I hate Christianity, in fact some have even accused me of being more interested in Christianity than in Islam due to the reading I've done in the past and my library at home.

You threw in a completely irrelevant attack on Sami based on a previous correspondence made between him and Sam Shamoun, which Sami and Sam have made their peace over. How did that relate to Sami's issue with James in the slightest David?

"I don't think Sami would deny this. Clearly, we can hate something so much that rationality goes out the window. The point of posting Sami's emails was to show how much he hates Christianity. He hates Jesus and the Gospel so much that he can't discuss these things logically.

I think its safe to say (I'll double check with Sami) that Sami's attack on Dr. White was due to hypocrisy, you discuss Islamic Oppression on one hand then support someone in an invading army illegally occupying Iraq.

Compare this with James. James tries to be as accurate as posssible when he discusses Islam. So do I. So does Sam Shamoun. So you can attack Sam as much as you like, but the fact remains. Sam is remarkably accurate when he talks about Islam, whereas practically everything Sami says about Christianity is false.

1) Dr. White hasn't really discussed Islam that accurately actually, all he has really done is raise terrible strawman arguments, and given false citations as far as I have seen. It doesn't matter how great a library he has until we actually see him utilising scholarly resources in his debates.

2) Sam Shamoun, well I wouldn't say he portrays Islam correctly either, but him and I have made our peace so I'll just leave him out of the discussion.

3) As for you David, you wish to be the judge, the jury and the executioner all at once, one minute you complain how unaccurately Muslims portray Christianity according to your standards, then the next minute you portray a form of Islam so radically different from how any scholar Sunni or Shi'i has ever understood it to be, you use sources which aren't deemed authentic according to Sunnis themselves, then you have the audacity to dismiss the sources they bring refuting your arguments and tarnishing them as revisionists on your blog.

You either allow Muslims to pick at the Biblical text in a way that disregards context and a systematic approach, or you yourself should start doing the same with Islamic historical texts. Be consistent.

Now, concerning "completely pacifistic" Christians, whom do you mean? I'm certainly not a complete pacifist. What I am against is fighting those with different beliefs because they aren't Christians. But Christians aren't doing that. It's your Muslim brothers and sisters who are doing that. And instead of correcting them, you're complaining about me for exposing them.

1) Ok, well thats my mistake for equating you with Jay Smith's theological stance on War which the BIC view as unjust in any case being of a mennonite background I guess.

2) Simple yes or no, Is the Iraq War a Just War?

3) Again, since you apparently know so little about me and the debates I have had with "Jihadi Salafis" regarding fighting innocent people, then you will be excused for your rather uneducated statement regarding me being silent about such people. They are not my brothers, unless you consider the catholics who raped and pillaged My ancestors and your Wife's ancestors in the Philippines with the Sword of "Christ".

My issue with you is you are meant to be an academic sir, yet you post links to neo con scaremongers such as Robert Spence and now this latest film. Heck you even posted a Video by the british Atheist Pat Condell who ridicules Jesus and Christianity as much as Islam just because it was against Muslim!!!

Interesting film though reminds me of a High School history class I did in which we watched Nazi propaganda films against the Jews just prior to WWII.

And may Allah forgive me if I have said anything wrong, for all shortcomings come from me and me alone.; October 5, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Nakdimon said...: Interesting to see that Sami has a mouthfull all the time about how briliant his arguments are. I have challenged Sami to a written debate and haven't heard from Sami in weeks. Not even a "no thanks".

A written debate for two reasons:

1) English isn't my native language and I am a terrible speaker even in my native Dutch.

2) In a written debate you can't make a claim and not get burnt for it if it's untrue. In an audio debate you can sway the crowd with eloquent speech and throw anything out without it being proven false, because of time limits and what have you. In a written debate, this is simply not the case. You can present your case more forcefully and expose minor details that can have effect on the outcome of the debate.

Sami doesn't want discussing Muhammad being in prophecized in the Bible. Since the Qur'an claims that he is, his prophetic credentials stand or fall with his appearance or absence in the the Bible. And if he isn't, and Sami knows he isn't, the claim of the Qur'an is just another lie among many and Mo stops being a prophet in the line of the Biblical prophets (if he ever was one!).

By the way, Sami's debate with James White is a complete mismatch. James will squash him like never before.; October 5, 2008 at 7:09 PM
The said...: "Assalam-0-Alikum"
"Peace Be Upon You"

David,why do you always have to act like a child??
You should be preaching the "GospelS",on the contrary,you are being a baby making blogs like this one,
A person who says "KARRAN" instead of "Qu'ran",is getting refuted by brother Sami,
So please,
There is no "personal attacks",
if there are,
Then James calling Sami a "Terrorist" is nothing in your eyes??; October 6, 2008 at 8:04 AM
Nakdimon said...: Doesn't matter how one pronounces it, the book is still repulsive and extremely flawed in every way possible.; October 6, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Nakdimon said...: reading yahya's last post and his comment on James white not being accurate I strongly get the feeling that muslims tell us "don't believe what our sources say, believe what WE tell you that our sources say".; October 6, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Nakdimon,

Don't make me laugh, you have absolutely no background in the historical subject which we call "Islamic Histiography" and subsequently have no idea what so ever about the Historical view of al-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq, even al-Waqidi whom you guys seem to love has been reviled as a suspect document. I'm no defender of Bukhari, but just to disarm your strawman here, Sunnis have accepted Bukhari since near its compilation to be a sound compilation on the basis of isnad criticism and so for them, its not their recent friend employed for Apologetics...

So please take a few modules at a university or something and learn about Islamic views of historical compilations.; October 6, 2008 at 6:42 PM
ben malik said...: Talking about rice Christians maybe Yahya can explain surah 9:60 where Muslims are told that part of their alms not only go to finance and fund terrorists but also to entice people to become Muslims. Perhaps he can further provide for us the historical application of this passage by his own prophet so we can see how Muhammad distributed more plunder and booty to the Meccans who had recently been forced to submit to his rule in order to bribe them into becoming or remaining Muslims.

I eagerly await his response since he obviously knows more than we do about Islam. The fact is that when he does provide his references it will become apparent that Muhammad and his followers produced more rice Muslims than Christians have have ever been able to produce "rice Christians".

Ohh, btw, since I am supposed to be Sam Shamoun does this mean that the peace between has been broken? And could you document one single instance where Shamoun misrepresented Islam? I would love to see that.; October 6, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Nakdimon said...: I have read Sami's letter about James White on his website and I thought I'd write Sami a letter. This is what I wrote him.

"Indeed my respect for White keeps going down by the day! Notice the bigotry of this soldier, claiming that brutality and violence is something inherited in the Islamic world! Basically all of us Muslims living in Muslim countries are barbaric violent people! And James White supports this thesis folks, which is why my respect for him goes down, indeed for a man who claims he is a scholar he has a very bigoted racist view of the Muslim world, I guess this is the Christian love. "

Sami, you are so blind with hatred for anything that isn’t islam, it’s almost painful to watch. And this is yet again a confirmation of the Muslim mindset: "We can treat others the way we see fit, but dont others dare to treat us likewise!" It is amazing to see Muslims blame everything that is out of joint in the West on Christianity, while the West is practically entirely secular. You just try to make one law based on Biblical theology in the West and entire societies will attack the lawmaker. But for Muslims to blame Christianity for the "rotten Western society" is totally justifiable! No ifs ands or buts, whatsoever. Yet, this man goes to an Islamic country, where they live according to Islamic laws and the man can’t make the connection with Islam and the horrors he sees on a daily basis, lest he be accused of being an Islamiphobe, a bigot and all the bad names in the book. Imams come from Islamic countries to the West and preach their nonsense in mosques in a language that the indigenous people don’t understands and you keep quiet and stay put. But if someone criticises that imam, then you go ballistic and accuse people of being haters of Islam and not having a good bone in their bodies.

"Number two, the irony of this soldier! The chaos and carnage he sees in Iraq is a result of his own hands! It was America who went into Iraq and disbanded the country's army, police, and government, basically the WHOLE COUNTRIES STRUCTURE WAS TAKEN AWAY. This naturally will lead to lawlessness, crime, gangs, and many political groups each wanting to fill the power vaccum. "

This, again, goes to the heart of Islam. Sami, WHY is it that the "WHOLE COUNTRIES STRUCTURE" is still not build? BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF YOUR PEACEFUL RELIGION ARE BLOWING UP THE PEOPLE WHO TRY TO REBUILD THE COUNTRY!!!. People try every day to work hard to build up the country and make it even better than it ever was, but it is your fellow Muslims who will not allow the people to try to build a normal life. AND WHERE IS YOUR OUTCRY OF CONDAMNATION THEN? You remain completely silent when those things happen. This is apparent from the fact that there isn’t even ONE miserable article on your website to condemn those things. But when America removes a terrible man from his position of power, a man who was as brutal to his own people as he would be to his worst enemies, proving the overwhelming majority of the country a great service (I doubt that you have missed their reaction when Sadam was removed. And btw dont get me wrong, I was against the war!), and tries to rebuild that country together with the people of the land, your fellow Muslims attack not only Westerners, but also the people they claim to defend in the process! And they show no remorse about it!

When the armies of Western countries by accident kill civilians they apologize for it and investigate the matter thoroughly. They won’t hesitate to put the soldiers on trial if they didn’t live up to the codes of conduct. But even that won’t face you, will it, Sami? Yet, your fellow Muslims produce massacre after massacre, first in marketplaces, then in mosques and then on funerals of the family members of their initial victims, screaming "Allahu akbar!", and you don’t say a word! Who shows the will to live peacefully alongside whom? And who is the one acting violently on the basis of religious conviction? And why can’t we link all these attrocities to Islam? And if this has nothing to do with Islamic conduct, then where is YOUR outcry of condemnation? Why don’t we hear you roar then?

"Just look at New Orleans, when there was a major storm and little police for a few days all hell broke loose, now imagine this on a much larger scale, involving a WHOLE COUNTRY where you remove all order and law, what do you think will happen?
Hence the violence this soldier sees is a result of his own commander in chief's orders which he blindly followed and implemented! "

Here, again, your failure to be objective is astonishing. Why do you think that New Orleans, although more recent than Iraq, is being build up more rapidly then Iraq? Why do you think that the destruction of Katrina has brought people together instead of seperating them? Because people dont go aroud slaughtering each other. They work together to rebuild the place. They work hard every day to restore everything Katrina has destroyed, to make everything better than it was before. Not so with your fellow Muslims. They slaughter eachother and blame America (and Israel if they have to) for every Muslim casualty they make.

Sami, your inability to look at the world objectively is amazing!; October 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: "Ohh, btw, since I am supposed to be Sam Shamoun does this mean that the peace between has been broken? And could you document one single instance where Shamoun misrepresented Islam? I would love to see that."

Ok, well you apparently aren't Shamoun, and since I have no form of sign off with you Malik, then I see no reason why I should be forced to respond to someone who likes to insult.

Yes, Malik I do know more than you when it comes to Islam, it's called a Systematic Approach to studying the texts as opposed to the Missionary approach of quote out of context.; October 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM
ben malik said...: Ahh, gee, does that mean that you won't document how your prophet and his companions made more rice Muslims than any other Christian missionary has produced rice Christians? Please, pretty please, enlighten us and help cure our ignorance by explaining the meaning and application of 9:60. PLEASE! Just for once help us by coming down to our level and share your grea knowledge of the Islamic way of making rice Muslims.; October 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Nakdimon said...: Yes, Malik I do know more than you when it comes to Islam, it's called a Systematic Approach to studying the texts as opposed to the Missionary approach of quote out of context.

Unbelievable. I always ask myself how muslims determine what the right “context” is of the quotes that we use to prove our case. When we follow the chronology of Ishaq and Tabari, which happen to be the only chronological sources you guys have, you blame us for quoting things out of context. But you guys feel free to quote Bukhari and Muslim and even the Qur’an, which are totally and utterly devoid of context, and then put your own context around your quotes.

So how do you determine the “right context”?; October 8, 2008 at 4:00 AM
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...: Nakdimon,

Once again you've proven your knowledge to be void of even contemporary western scholarship on the Qur'an for you have claimed that the book is devoid of context, which is at best an uneducated opinion which stems from a way of viewing the text which is deficient.

Yes, it is necessary to put a context around our quotes, for to quote without context leads to a profound misunderstanding and a radical revisionary stance on the intended meaning behind the quote.; October 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM
danic25 said...: may peace b unto all my brothers in this site. brother i advice u all not 2 take the pain and go till zakir naik and shabbir ali and dr jamal badawi i only advice u 2 have a debate with our muslim brothers who r in dawah field and i challenge anyone to have a debate with me on ur choosen topix allhumdullilah i m ready 2 debate on any topic and shall prove 2 u abt the facts and after that if i fail to prove 2 u then u can go to our eminent muslim scholars like dr zakir naik. first i encourage u 2 have a debate wid me. and anyone intrested can contact me; February 23, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Royal Son said...: Danic25: Who are you? This is an old thread, but if you're around, give us an introduction.

By the way, Zakir Naik does not want to debate Christian unless they can bring an audience of 10,000 people with them. I think he wants lots of $ from ticket sales.; March 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM