Debate Review: Nadir Ahmed vs Doug Beaumont on Islamic Morality vis a vis Christian Morality
Denis Giron
On December 1st, Doug Beaumont, webmaster of http://souldevice.org ,
had a debate with Nadir Ahmed, webmaster of
http://www.examinethetruth.com , on the topic of Islamic and Christian
morality. The debate consisted of each party speaking once for fifteen
minutes, and then switched to a "crossfire" format where each party
went back and forth in 60 second intervals for half an hour. Then there
was a question and answer section (which included a heated, though
largely sophomoric, exchange between Nadir and Sam Shamoun, a staff
writer for the http://www.answering-islam.org website). The respective
sites of Nadir and Beaumont both offer audio of the debate, thought in
somewhat different formats:
OPENING STATEMENTS
http://www.examinethetruth.com/doug_nadir_part1.mp3
http://souldevice.org/Audio/AMD_1_opening.mp3
CROSSFIRE SECTION
http://www.examinethetruth.com/doug_nadir_part2.mp3
http://souldevice.org/Audio/AMD_2_crossfire.mp3
Q&A SECTION
http://www.examinethetruth.com/RefutingAI/shamounrunning.mp3
http://souldevice.org/Audio/AMD_3_QandA.mp3
[The version on Nadir's site consists almost entirely of his exchange
with Shamoun, while the version on Beaumont's site consists of
everything prior to the exchange of abuse and subsequent tirade]
Doug Beaumont's valuable analysis of the debate can be found here:
http://souldevice.org/ol_nadir_ahmed_morality_debate.htm
In this post I will give some short thoughts on the debate, and look
forward to any comments from others who listened to it.
In short, while Nadir has expressed great confidence in the belief that
he won the debate, I found myself disagreeing with his
overly-simplistic approach to the Bible, and generally agreed with
Beaumont's arguments. Unfortunately, very little was said about Islamic
morality; rather the debate centered almost entirely on Christian
morality. The only time Islamic morality came up was during the Q&A
section, when audience members took shots and the Qur'an. Sam Shamoun
in particular tried to duplicate and adapt Naidr's sophomoric approach,
and attacked Muta on the grounds that it is essentially nothing more
than prostitution (I wondered about the value of such an attack,
however since Nadir's interpretation of Islam prohibits Muta [which
Shamoun acknowledged and also used as a point of attack], and further
since I am not aware of Qur'anic references to Muta, aside from an
interpretation certain Muslims apply to a vague passage in Soorat
an-Nissa). Admittedly, however, I'm generally ignorant on the issue of
Muta.
About seven minutes into his opening statement, Nadir put forth what
was essentially the foundational premise of his entire argument:
"If the Bible does not condemn something, then we cannot condemn it. It
is like driving a car; there's nothing in the Bible which says that
driving a car is wrong, therefore the obvious conclusion is that God
does not have a problem with driving a car."
As the debate went on Nadir pounded this point over and over again,
like a drum beat, and further making the absurd claim that if the Bible
does not condemn something, then it "promotes" it! Of course, Beaumont
gave a wonderful example in noting the Biblical approach to abortion.
While the Bible makes no mention of abortion (and thus never explicitly
condemns it), it is fairly reasonable to believe that the Biblical
writers would have been hostile to the idea (or that the tenets of the
Bible lead one to the conclusion that they are inconsistent with
abortion).
Nadir's line of reasoning was in conflict with the way both Christians
and Muslims approach their respective holy writs (for a minor example,
I would note he ignored the notion of ijtihad in Islam and *roughly*
analogous approaches to deriving doctrine employed by various Christian
communities). For example, the Qur'an never condemns placing statues in
the masjid. The one time the Qur'an even speaks of statues (Arabic:
tamaatheel) in the masjid (Soorat Saba 34:13) pertains to the masjid
built by Solomon, and there is quite simply no attempt to condemn the
practice. However, does this mean that, therefore, Islam *PROMOTES*
placing statues in the masjid? Of course the answer is no, which shows
that it is fallacious to claim that if the holy writ of a religion does
not explicitly condemn a practice, the religion therefore promotes it.
Nadir tried to claim that the Bible prohibits [pre-marital or
extra-marital] sexual intercourse, but does not explicitly condemn
"sticking your tongue down a girl's throat" (his example). The problem
is that I know of no explicit condemnation of this specific behavior in
the Qur'an either. Nadir argued that the Bible allows everything but
sexual intercourse, and asked the audience to use their imagination
with regard to what the implications of that are. Of course, all those
various actions we can imagine (that do not include direct genital
intercourse) are not explicitly condemned in the Qur'an as far as I
know. Nonetheless, we know that most interpretations of Christianity
and Islam frown on such behavior unless it is between a husband and
wife.
Nadir tried to capitalize on the fact that the Bible does not
explicitly state how long a woman's garment (e.g. her skirt) should be.
If anything, this may cast some doubt on a strictly "Sola Scriptura"
approach, as it shows that the rules of the text cannot stand alone
without the interpretations of the community, irrespective of whether
the exegesis employed by the community is treated as canonical or not,
but in no way did it support Nadir's conclusion that the Bible promotes
a "Girls Gone Wild" kind of lifestyle (this example was given by
Nadir). Just as no version of Islam is simply the Qur'an alone (not
even the so-called "Ahli al-Qur'aan" type of hadith-rejecting heterodox
Muslims really work with only the Qur'an; rather they rely on various
modes of exegesis as well); so too no version of Christianity is simply
the Bible alone.
Nadir spent too much time harping about the behavior of Christians
(examples provided by him included Christians allowing their daughters
to join the cheer leading team), which is an approach truly devoid of
value since a religion in practice tells us very little about the
religion in theory (exempli gratia: violence committed by Muslims,
Christians or other individuals does not immediately imply the
conclusion that their respective ideology promotes such behavior).
Worst of all, Nadir seemingly contradicted himself in saying on the one
hand that the Bible prohibits [pre-marital] sexual intercourse, yet
saying on the other hand that Biblical morality is responsible for the
spread of AIDS amongst Christians.
In the end, I felt that Doug Beaumont got the upperhand in the debate
(and I generally agree with the analysis by Beaumont linked to above).
The only downside to Beaumont's approach was that it never really
touched on the issue of Islamic morality (though I wonder how clear it
was to Beaumont that this was part of the debate; he may have thought
it was only on the subject of Christian morality). If anyone feels that
Nadir won the debate, I would ask that they explicitly state why they
feel this way. I look forward to the comments of others.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
asimm...@yahoo.com
human being, i.e. it is part of man's INHERENT guidance, you would
wonder whether any of these people understand anything about their
religion.
zubai...@yahoo.com
> Pax Vobis!
> In the end, I felt that Doug Beaumont got the upperhand in the debate
> (and I generally agree with the analysis by Beaumont linked to
above).
> The only downside to Beaumont's approach was that it never really
> touched on the issue of Islamic morality (though I wonder how clear
it
> was to Beaumont that this was part of the debate; he may have thought
> it was only on the subject of Christian morality). If anyone feels
that
> Nadir won the debate, I would ask that they explicitly state why they
> feel this way. I look forward to the comments of others.
> -Denis Giron
> http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
I'm not at all surprised by your assessment of the debate. Although,
you claim to be an atheist, your views and your writings reflect you
have a lot of faith in the Bible, and Christianity in general. Further,
you seem to religiously, embrace a nonstop attack on Islam and the
Quran, however weak and unscholarly it is. The fact of the matter is,
Christianity and the Bible specifically have a lot of inherent
problems, historical, logical, contradictions, accuracy, etc. With you
claiming to be an atheist I am at loss of words as to why you have so
much faith in the bible, because when comparing the two, the Quran
presents a much better case in comparison to the Bible in all the
aspects mentioned above.
On the debate, Nadir did point out some major moral problems with
Christianity, however he did miss some things or not focus enough on
certain things, which are critical as well, such as alchoholism,
slavery, incest, etc..which are directly or indirectly approved in the
bible. The Muslims are much more sexually and ethically moral people
when compared to the Christians, and it is wrong to ignore how much
influence the Bible or the Quran have had in the superioirty of Muslims
over Christians.
One further point on the debate, is the fact that I was surprised with
the fact that Sam Shamoun did run away from Nadir, this was quite
surprising since both of these had been at it for a while, calling each
other cowards, chicken, etc.., yet it was Sam who ran away.
Looking at it from another perspective, it actually might not be that
surprising, given the fact that Sam is quite amateurish in his
discourses on Islam, his lack of knowledge in Islamic theology or the
Arabic language, extensive use of jargon in his "papers", and so forth.
Overall, it was an entertaining debate, and from an unbiased point of
view, I would have to give the edge to Nadir, because the points he
raised went uncontested or without a sufficient response.
Altway
<asimm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Comment:-
Yes I agree.
These silly debates are wholly futile, a kind of game where the contestants
desire to
win and show off their skills, a self-indulgence that has nothing to do with
the pursuit of Truth.
In so far as the Spirit of Allah is within one (32:9)
it is a question of awareness and Surrender to Allah
not of verbal contests.
"And the soul and Who fashioned it, and enlightened it with what is wrong
and right for it! He indeed is successful who causes it to grow (or purifies
it)! And he indeed is a failure who corrupts it!" 91:7-10
"Say: I exhort you only to one thing that you awake for Allah's sake (or
stand up before Allah) in twos or singly, then ponder." 34:46
Hamid S. Aziz
Denis Giron
Syed Abedi <zubai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1103075155.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> I'm not at all surprised by your assessment of the debate.
> Although, you claim to be an atheist, your views and your
> writings reflect you have a lot of faith in the Bible,
> and Christianity in general.
I find this response rather surprising. At the end of your post you
claimed that your having given the edge to Nadir was "from an unbiased
point of view". I think most would agree that when it comes to
reviewing a debate between a Christian and a Muslim, an atheist is
generally closer to being "unbiased" than is a Muslim. You, however,
seemed to attempt to pre-emptively poison the well by painting me as a
some sort of a crypto-Christian.
While indeed my position towards Christianity (which used to be very
hostile) has softened considerably over the last couple years, the same
is true of Islam as well. It is also true that I consider *certain*
aspects of Christianity more intellectually or philosophically
appealing than the corresponding aspects in Islam, but the reverse is
also true as well. For example, as I was recently noting in an email
discussion with a Muslim gentleman, Christianity holds Jesus to have
been a divine figure and to have considered himself such, while Islam
claims the reverse. In this instance I think Islam is probably correct.
On the flip side however, Christianity holds that Jesus was executed
via crucifixion, while Islam claims the opposite. In this instance I
think Christianity is probably correct.
Anyway, to put it bluntly, I have no "faith" in the Bible. In fact, I
think the following article from last October might show that you have
far more "faith" in the Bible than I do:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/89554978d81c39dd
It is in that article that I comment on what appears to be a popular
Islamic conception of the Bible: that it contains remnants of formerly
pristine revelations from Allaah (such as the true Tawraat or Injeel).
I have seen no evidence to consider *any* part of the Bible to be of a
divine origin, thus I do not believe any part of the Bible is revealed
or reflects some past revelation from a divine agent (and I think this
is wholly unlike your position on the Bible).
> Further, you seem to religiously, embrace a nonstop attack
> on Islam and the Quran, however weak and unscholarly it is
Putting aside the validity or soundness of my criticisms of Islam for a
moment, I will disagree here as well. I think my position on Islam has
softened a great deal over the last year or so, and I am far from
hostile towards the faith. My posts to SRI more often than not avoid
any positive assertion about alleged errors in the Qur'an. So while
there are philosophical grounds upon which I reject Islam, and I do
occasionally air them publically, I do not think I am, at this time,
waging non-stop attacks on the faith or its Holy Writ. In short, I
think your description of me was, with all due respect, possibly more
rooted in emotion than reality.
But let us get to the rest of your post...
> The fact of the matter is, Christianity and the Bible
> specifically have a lot of inherent problems, historical,
> logical, contradictions, accuracy, etc.
For the most part, I agree with you here.
> the Quran presents a much better case in comparison to the
> Bible in all the aspects mentioned above.
Here I would comment (again, as I did above) that it depends on what is
being commented on. Objective (i.e. non-Christian) historical
scholarship revolving around the Bible has produced some conclusions
that are compatible with the picture painted in the Qur'an, and others
that are, to put it mildly, somewhat less compatible. Furthermore,
assuming the Bible and Qur'an have "contradictions" (I'm shaky on
employing this word, as most abuse it), it is certainly the case that
the Qur'an has far less "contradictions" than does the Bible, and is
better preserved than most books in the Bible.
Of course, there is a great deal more to be said on why this is, but I
suppose that is for another time. Let me get to your review of the
debate:
> On the debate, Nadir did point out some major moral
> problems with Christianity
Could you cite some examples? While I have great respect for Nadir, I
tended to disagree with his arguments almost entirely. As I noted in my
review, his chief argument was that if a text does not explicitly
denounce a behavior, then it "promotes" it. This argument is plainly
false, and I think Beaumont gave some wonderful counter examples. I
myself gave the example of tamaatheel in the masjid to show that while
the Qur'an does not explicitly condemn such a practice, this is no
reason to claim that the text therefore *promotes* it.
> he did miss some things or not focus enough on
> certain things, which are critical as well, such
> as alchoholism, slavery, incest, etc...
I agree that these are much more problematic topics for Christians to
deal with, but as you noted Nadir did not bring up these things in the
debate, hence they lose relevance. Keep in mind that I was not
defending Christianity or attacking Islam, or claiming the Bible is
devoid of portions which seem morally problematic. I was simply arguing
that Nadir's argument was poor, and that I felt Beaumont explained why
rather nicely.
> The Muslims are much more sexually and ethically moral people
> when compared to the Christians
I really don't wish to debate this, as I think it invites us to engage
in groupthink where we treat an entire cohort as monolithic.
Nonetheless, I will say that this statement is far from being obviously
true, as many people feel that the reverse is the case.
Anyway, I would request that you elaborate on which arguments you felt
Nadir put forth which you considered powerful or which you felt
Beaumont failed to deal with. I felt that Nadir's chief argument was
very succinctly refuted by Beaumont in the beginning, but admittedly
these are just my thoughts.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm