Some Notes On Sam Shamoun’s Lowly Character

Addendum: The Debate Challenge

While commenting upon the format of the debate and the topic, Katz writes:

First, Sam Shamoun did not dictate the date. He only stated that he has other committments which will only allow him to do the debate in February. He gave Abualrub the full freedom to choose any date in February (or even later, for that matter). Sam Shamoun simply stated the time when he is not available. He did not say: 6 February 2005, or nothing. That would be unreasonable. There is nothing unreasonable about giving Abualrub the full freedom to choose a date in the range within which Sam Shamoun is available.

First, this is not a major issue, the major issue is Shamoun’s extremely abusive demeaner, something not once condemned by Katz (does Katz support that behaviour?). However, coming to the date, Shamoun did, actually, dictate the date, and he did not object to Br. Jalal’s saying that he did. Br Jalal wanted to debate Shamoun in December, because Shamoun had said (emphasis added):

“Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:16 PM My man,I am prepared NOW to debate you on this subject”

In English, “now” means now, hence this is why Br. Jalal said:

“Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:45 PM …i am looking for a late december live debate”

to which Shamoun responded

“Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:56 PM. “WRONG!!! Live debate will be on Paltalk JUST LIKE I SAID IN THE FIRST EMAIL WHICH I SAVED. And it will have to be February, AND I DO MEAN FEBRUARY.”

Nonetheless, the exact date is a minor issue and something that can be easily worked out.

Second, Abualrub’s format is not a proper debate format. Basically, what we have here is a “court hearing”. The case is: Is Muhammad a true Prophet of God, or is he not? This is a complex issue that cannot be decided on the basis of any one single argument. Many aspects have to be taken into account. Since the person whose claims and integrity are in question is not present to be interrogated himself, the case has to be made solely based on evidence collected from various places.

Such a complex case — whether pro or contra — cannot be presented in two minute tidbits. I have never heard of a court hearing in which the prosecutor and defense will go back and fourth in two or three minute segments when they present their cases. No, each one will have a sufficient period to make his case. Afterwards, after the case was presentend in its entirety only then can one question every detail. But if one were to debate every detail before the whole case is laid out, the hearing would be a complete mess.

To begin with, there is nothing “improper” about the format proposed by Br. Jalal. Pretty much the same format was employed in the presendial debates of the United States where a range of subjects were discussed one at a time. If Bush and Kerry could discuss complex issues as those discussed in their debates, many complex issues, which were done in the manner suggested by Br. Jalal, then how can Katz and Shamoun say it is not a proper debate format? The aim of Shamoun and Katz, in my view, is logically as follows: let Shamoun speak for 40-50 minutes with his foul mouth so that he can hurl dozens of claims and polemics, so that Br. Jalal cannot possibly respond to them all in the time allotted to him. Both Katz and Shamoun seek to find a way out to get challenged on specific topics. Naturally, Br. Jalal would need more time to fully address the polemics hurled by Shamoun, for instance, pinpointing translational problems of quotes, misquotations, what scholars have to say about a certain matter, analysis of the sources of information etc etc. Now imagine the missionary firing away one polemic after another, does Br. Jalal really have to time to address each one, of a diverse nature, in detail? No. Perhaps he would be able to respond to some issues in detail, but many others would not be addressed simply due to the time factor. That’s why, Shamoun was offered to have a topic by topic debate, but he flatly refused. He refused to have such a debate with Nadir Ahmed as well.

The topic proposed by Shamoun was: Is Muhammad a true Prophet or was he deceived by Satan? As Katz acknowledges above, this is a very wide ranging subject, or as Katz puts it “Many aspects have to be taken into account” and “This is a complex issue that cannot be decided on the basis of any one single argument”. Correct, since many arguments and issues need to be considered, then why not have a debate where we can discuss them all one item at a time? If this principal is accepted, then even the format can be worked out. As long as one specific issue can be discussed at a time, there should be no problem in agreeing upon a format acceptable by all sides. But this is the problem: both Katz and Shamoun desperately wish to avoid discussing one issue at a time. They want to fire everything in one go so that the opponent can only respond to a few points. As we saw in the mails, Shamoun is not willing to have a point by point discussion and his cheap behaviour in e-mails leaves no doubt in ones mind that his intentions are insincere. Nadir Ahmed offered a very reasonable proposal to Shamoun, where every issue would be discussed in detail, but Shamoun refused. Why? Because his desire is to have an opportunity where he can simply fire away one polemic after another and the opponent wouldn’t be in a position to respond to them all in time even if he is fully familiar with the subject.

There is little problem with Katz’s objection to the proposed format – a side issue that can be resolved – but Katz does not show a willingness on an item by item disucussion. If he would do so, then I am sure the parties could work out a debate format and date.

Katz writes:

Such a complex case – whether pro nor contra – cannot be presented in two minute tidbits.

No problem, agree upon the principal to discuss one issue at a time, instead of lumping everything together, and the format will then be decided through mutual agreement.

Insisting on “only one argument/aspect at a time” seems to have only one intention: To PREVENT Sam Shamoun from presenting a coherent case against Muhammad by interrupting him after every statement. That is simply not a reasonable debate format. Period.

This is absurd, why can’t we have this: pick one, or 2-3 topics (nothing ridiculously general that it encompasses virtually every topic you can think of) and debate it. After the debate the listeners will get the question and answer oppurtunity? Surely if you believe that your claims are the truth then you should not be so hesitant to discuss them one by one. That you are only willing to have a debate on a very broad subject and refuse to narrow down to specific topics shows you are the one who is bent on preventing the truth from coming out.

Abualrub will not have less time. If he believes that he can respond to Shamoun’s arguments in 15 x 3 minutes, then he can just as well do it in 45 minutes. That is the equal amount of time. The only difference is that, in a longer time, Shamoun can make a coherent case against Muhammad. On the other hand, Abualrub could then in his time make a coherent case FOR Muhammad. There is nothing unfair about this.

How about this: 15X3 minutes for a specific issue, debate it, have rebuttals, questions and answers from the audience, and then, probably the next day, proceed to a different topic? This way every single issue will be discussed in-depth….This is what Shamoun wants, and Katz seems to want this as well: debate a broadly titled subject, throwing dozens of polemics in your 45 minutes, or whatever time period, so that the opponent cannot possibly address all the issues adequately in the time allotted to him. This is unfair.

Perhaps Abualrub feels that he does not really need to make a case for Muhammad, perhaps he feels that Muhammad’s claim to prophethood is true by default, unless shown otherwise, so that his main goal is to merely prevent Shamoun making a case against Muhammad. Then his demand for such an unsuitable debate format would make sense.

Shamoun appears to have infected Katz with his disease of self-deception as well. To repeat again: Br. Jalal wishes to refute Shamoun’s polemics POINT BY POINT, ITEM BY ITEM, where EVERY INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT is addressed and discussed in detail. This way we can move on from topic to topic, leaving nothing unexplored. That Shamoun and Katz are unwilling to discuss one issue at a time only indicates that they, either conciously or subconciously, are aware of the weaknesses of their arguments. Why would they prevent the discussion of all the issues in detail?

Katz writes to justify his unfair demand:

Note that Abualrub has a huge advantage over Sam Shamoun even in the format proposed by Shamoun. Here it is: Sam Shamoun’s arguments against Muhammad are already available online.

What “arguments” are we talking about? Well, if we go to Shamoun’s section on answering-islam, we learn he has dozens, dozens, dozens and many many dozens and dozens of polemical papers against Islam each on a wide range of subjects. Now Katz and Shamoun want to discuss EVERYTHING in a one off debate…naturally so a variety of polemics can be hurled so that the opponent is overwhelmed and simply cannot respond to them all in his time. Why not do this: identify specific polemics authored by Shamoun (remember, he has authored multiple dozens of papers) and discuss them one at a time? What is so unreasonable about this proposal?

Abualrub can carefully examine them BEFORE the debate and work out his very best arguments to counter them.

Which issues, out of the almost hundred, is Katz talking about? I ask you, is this reasonable? A sober mind will have to say no.

Thus, Sam Shamoun is in the much much more difficult position. Nevertheless, he still has accepted Abualrub’s challenge. He only insists on a proper debate format.

Which is nonsense because the missionary is even not willing to debate one subject at a time.

Katz ends with these words:

What makes all of this even more amazing is the following observation: Abualrub answered to a debate challenge issued by some Evangelist E. D. Rosario. He even published his correspondence with E. D. Rosario on his website, and in his fourth response, dated 26 January 2004, Abualrub proposed the following debate format:
As for the debate itself:
• I suggest this title for the debate: Is Islam a Valid Religion?
• You speak for 30 minutes first and then I the same, then you for 20-30 minutes and then I the same. This way, you will have the chance to refute what I say too.
• Then the audience Q&A session, unrestricted: I am willing to take any question from the audience about any Islamic topic.

As this format is virtually identical to the format suggested by Sam Shamoun, on what objective grounds does Abualrub now object to it? Did he demand an unreasonable format merely so that he doesn’t have to debate Sam Shamoun, i.e. trying to save face for backing down from his own challenge?

Here Katz misses the simple point that Rosario and Shamoun are not one and the same person and have different arguments to offer. Rosario has limited issues to raise, thereby making it possible for an opponent to deal with his arguments in an adequate manner in a one off debate. Shamoun, on the other hand, has many, many, many and many, many things to say, ranging to diverse topics, contained in loads of dozens and dozens of articles, thereby making it impossible to consider all the diverse polemics in detail in a 40-50 minutes time period. Instead, it would be more fair and reasonable to have a point by point discussion…where both sides can discuss one item at a time, question each other, receive questions from the audiences, and then proceed to the next subject.

If Shamoun thinks he has a case against the Prophet Muhammad^(P), then why does he not show up to a live debate in front of people and spell it out, one piece at a time? I think this: A debate on an issue by issue basis terrifies Shamoun and his mentor Katz. They know that they cannot go up the ladder if every time they lie, Bro. Jalal will exposes the lie.

Cite This As: APA MLA IEEE Harvard Chicago Vancouver