Nadir Ahmed claims another victory.

In one of my article in this Blog, I have introduced Nadir Ahmed to my viewers. He is a self-proclaimed Scholar of Islam, who thinks that critics of Islam fear his intelligence and knowledge on Islam and comparative religion. After going through his refutations to Ali Sina, I decided to dedicate a short rebuttal to his claims, which can be viewed here.

I sent him link of my page and got an instant reply from him. In this page we will see his replies following my comments. I’ll keep updating this page, as the discussion progresses. Comments in ( ) are my opinion on his reply, which was not present in original mail, and is added later by me, for clarification of his mail. Following is the Nadir’s response to my page.

Nadir Ahmed:-

The comments on answering-christianity are untrue, I would not waste your time with such a person because he has openly admits on his website that he engages in fabricating lies against people. This is what Osama Abdullah admits on his website:
“I did make a big moral-mistake towards brother Jalal. I have lied on him! I have accused him of threatening me when he never did.  I also have fabricated the email about me deserving to get shot.  I did it intentionally and knowingly. “
I am just one of his many victims whom he has fabricated lies on. There are many strange people on the internet, I do not wish to waste my time with such people. Rather I would ask that you judge the arguments on my website based on it’s evidence.
Nadir Ahmed
Nadir Ahmed:-
I think what you need to do is admit that Ali Sina is a liar. you have read the link on my website, do you find any problems with it? If not, then please just do the right thing and admit that he is a liar. ( What makes him think that I am going to admit that Ali Sina is a liar after going through his debate with Ali Sina. I don’t think any rational mind would accept that Ali Sina has lied about Islam.)
To which I replied:-
Dear Nadir,

Thanks for your response. You say that comments on Answering-Christianity are untrue. Ok, but what about the clips which they have posted on their page, exposing you using your own words.What you say about that. Answering-Christianity also gives Link, where you accept Christian Prince‘ sex with animal allegation, see here.
Now coming to your claim that Ali Sina is a liar. I think Ali Sina has said in many of his debates, that he will raise allegations with proper backup of evidence from Islamic sources, and it founded untrue, or if he is unable to prove his allegation. He will take back the raised allegation.
I agree with Ali Sina, when he says that Muslims rely on Logical fallacy like,  argumentum ad verecundiam, argumentum ad antiquitatem, argumentum ad hominem etc.. Anyhow, if I accept that Ali Sina has lied, does this prove that all allegations he raised on Islam is wrong.
In the short debate you had with Ali Sina, you said, “
Ali Sina:
I accuse Muhammad of being unfit and unworthy to be a messenger of God.

Nadir Ahmed:- who cares… yawn…

So, it is Ok with you if Muhammad is discredited from being a Messenger of God, then what is the use of Message which he taught? First you need to prove Muhammad was messenger of God, then we will consider the message.


The False Prophet

Nadir Ahmed:-
I have no idea what is in that clip, but I didn’t say anything about islam allows to have sex with animals. As for ali sina, what do you have to say about his comment: hen Muhammad raises his hand to beat a woman who rejects his advances. Bukhari 7.63.182 is this true or false? this link will help you:
Nadir Ahmed
My Response:-
Dear Nadir Ahmed,

I apologize for delay in replying you. You gave me a link, which shows that Ali Sina lied. I have already said, that Ali Sina is a Human being, and we all are fallible. I am not justifying Ali Sina’s mistakes but, his one mistake cannot prove that Muhammad did not raised hand on women.

Bk 4, Number 2127:

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said:Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.

This proves that he beat Aisha, is this lie too? One lie is not enough to prove Ali Charlatan. Well you need to work more harder. WHy don’t you have a written debate with him. The debate will publicly expose either one of you.Regards..
Nadir Ahmed:-
Islam does not teach to beat women. Aisha was a GIRL. not a woman. Thus this hadith teaches it is ok to spank a child. ( It is easy to shift your stand, when Critics claim Muhammad of being a Pedophile, then the same Islamic scholars and apologists claim that Aisha was well grown Women, but when critics say that Muhammad beaten his wife, they claim she was a Child. What’s wrong with Islam?)
Nadir Ahmed
My Response:-

Respected Nadir,

Why Muslims choose whatever suits to their demand. In your last mail, you said “Aisha was a GIRL. not a woman. Thus this hadith teaches it is ok to spank a child.”

Now the problem is, when critics and Ex-Muslims started accusing Muhammad of being Pedophile. Muslims came up with the theory that Aisha’s age was not 6 year, when she was Married. First you need to settle this matter with your own Muslim community, who say Aisha was elder than 15 years when she was Married. For reference see this link:-

and, and this:-

So this topic is still in debate whether she was Child or Women. So, her beating cannot be justified. If she was Women, then Ali Sina’s claim is true that Muhammad beat women, and if she was Child then Prophet was pedophile.

You asked me to ask Ali Sina to debate you, but last time when both of you had debate, you kept asking him to debate him on topic, “Quran and Science”. Why not something else, which both of you agree to debate. In the FFI’s forum you ignored comments by readers, which accused Muhammad to be unfit of being a Messenger of God. So, why not debate on Muhammad’s character.


Nadir Ahmed:-

1 Samuel 15:3

King James Version (KJV)

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

now you must be honest and call Jesus a NAZI, then we can proceed. ( He considers me a Christian, so he used the best trick Muslims have to refute Islamic critic, i.e. Ad Hominem. I leave it on viewers to guess, what made him start this topic.)
Nadir Ahmed
My Response:-
Dear Nadir,

Why does it matter whether Jesus was Nazi or not? For the sake of argument if I agree with you that Jesus was Nazi based on one verse which you quoted, so does it prove that Muhammad too was a Nazi?
Now please proceed as I accept that Jesus was a Nazi, on condition when Muhammad too was a Nazi based on many evidences, for instance see these:-
Anas said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.” Bukhari 1.4.234

 “He [Muhammad] had their hands and feet cut off, ordered nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and they were left in a rocky land to die slowly.  Anas said that they asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died. Bukhari 4.02.261

Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”  Muslim 19: 4292
From Quran:-
Sahih International

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.[9:5]

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.[9:29]
It is much bigger list, so do you agree that Muhammad too was a Nazi?
Nadir Ahmed:-
I don’t see any evidence of nazism here…. which is mass extermination of a people. ( Where is th explaination, is he running from defending Islam now??)
Nadir Ahmed
My Response:-
Dear Nadir,

In one of you mail, you said, that you want to debate Ali Sina, so I mailed him, and asked him to debate you again. Below is the reply from him.

Nadir Ahmad is so dense that he does not realize when he is defeated. He beats his chest when he is actually proven wrong.

Here is the full debate that I had with him.

Just read it and see how pathetic he sounds.

Nadir is not a scholar and I have made a rule that I will either debate with scholars or with those who have read my book. So if he wants to debate with me he has to read my book, which I will send him a copy.

I saw Nadir’s debate with Sam Shameon. Now if after that he still has the face to show in public, then this man truely is incapable of realizing when he is being defeated. Sam destoryed the poor Nadir and he did it with grace and effortlessly.

If he thinks he has defeated me then he is delusional. This is a psychological problem and there is nothing I can do to help.  I can defeat him a million times and each time he will jump back and while his nose is bleeding, he will claim “yet another victory.” What can you do with a man like that?

Anyway, as I said, I will debate either with scholars or with those who have read my book. Nadir is no scholar. So let him read my book and then I will debate with him.

All the best


So what you say about the above, and have you read Sina’s Book Understanding Muhammad. If yes, he is ready to have a debate with you.Regards..
Nadir Ahmed:-
Of course because he is a pathological liar:1. Muhammad(P) burned down libraries2. raised his hand to slap a womando u want more ?:)

Now, when we talk about debate, are we talking about some written back and forth type nonsense? or can this coward face me , I will even settle for Skype, I suppose i can read his foolish writings, but what topic shall we discuss ?


 My Response:-
Respected Nadir Ahmed,

Your link does not prove that Ali Sina is a pathological liar. He says, that Muslims burnt libraries which belonged to Pre-Islamic era, I’ll quote his words from your site only, see this:-
“Muhammad and his followers destroyed all the books that belonged to the pre Islamic era of “jahiliyyah”. If no other book prior to Muhammad mentions this city it is because Muhammad burned those books.”
 As, he clearly states that Libraries were also burnt by his followers, and not alone Muhammad was responsible. This statement can be backed up with many evidences. Further it is more easy to defend Ali, because he adds this statement too:-
“The history reports the burning of the libraries in virtually all the countries that Muslims invaded. The most famous one of then was the huge library of Alexandria.”
So, as you see Ali Sina uses history to claim that Libraries were burnt by followers of Muhammad, and which ever place did Muslims invaded. Now see the evidences which support his claims:-

The longest version of the story is in the Syriac Christian author Bar-Hebraeus (1226–1286), also known as Abu’l Faraj. He translated extracts from his history, the Chronicum Syriacum into Arabic, and added extra material from Arab sources. In this Historia Compendiosa Dynastiarum he describes a certain “John Grammaticus” (490–570) asking Amr for the “books in the royal library”. Amr writes to Omar for instructions, and Omar replies: “If those books are in agreement with the Quran, we have no need of them; and if these are opposed to the Quran, destroy them.” [Source]

Further, you can also see this:-

The Muslims burned libraries all across North Africa and the Middle East. They burned the library of Alexandria – the largest library in the world at that time. It probably included original copies of the Bible and other priceless manuscripts.[Source]

There are other sources too, which mention the same thing. Wherever Muslims invaded, they burnt libraries. For instance, see what happened to great Nalanda University of India. 

In 1193, the Nalanda University was sacked by the fanatic Bakhtiyar Khilji, a Turk; this event is seen by scholars as a late milestone in the decline of Buddhism in India. The Persian historian Minhaj-i-Siraj, in his chronicle the Tabaquat-I-Nasiri, reported that thousands of monks were burned alive and thousands beheaded as Khilji tried his best to uproot Buddhism and plant Islam by the sword. [Sorce]

Isn’t it enough to back up Ali Sina’s claim?Now coming to your second objection, which I think I have replied in my earlier mail, but you ignored it stating Aisha was a Child and not Women. That was not the only evidence to prove that Muhammad allowed women beating. See the following narrations, which prove that Muhammad allowed women beating.

Sunan Abu Dawood, Book 1, Number 0142:
I have a wife who has something (wrong) in her tongue, i.e. she is insolent. He said: Then divorce her. I said: Messenger of Allah, she had company with me and I have children from her. He said: Then ask her (to obey you). If there is something good in her, she will do so (obey); and do not beat your wife as you beat your slave−girl.
This proves that Muhammad allowed Muslims to beat the slave-girls badly, as we can see he forbid Muslims to beat their women like Slave-Girls.
Also see :-
Sunan Abu Dawood Book 11, Number 2142:Narrated Umar ibn al−Khattab: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Apart from all this, there are many articles in FFI too which proves that Muhammad allowed wife beating. For instance see this:-
Hope, you realize the truth of Islam
This is the  discussion I had with Nadir Ahmed till date. I will also recommend viewers to read this page too. 
_________________________________________________________________________________________Update 24th May 2012 
Nadir Ahmed sent me a link of his debate with Robert Spencer, and asked me to give feedback. Here is the debate followed by my feedback.
 My feedback:-
Respected Nadir,I sincerely apologize for the delay in this reply, and thanks for the link. I went through your debate with Robert Spencer, and I agree as well as disagree with many things, which you said in that debate. You started your argument with “You will never find any example of fighting against non Believers, because they are Non Believers. So everyone understands what the topic here is. “I personally disagree with this point of yours, and I will provide you evidence from Canonical Islamic scriptures as you say, and from the works of Great scholars of Islam, and the point I agree that Robert Spencer, did not answered  your question which you asked him that, whether Christians during the life of Muhammad were clear and present danger?

In that debate, Robert tried to show you that the way you are interpreting the Qu’ranic verses, are your exclusive interpretation, and the Muslim world does not interprets Qu’ran, as you do, nor the Islamic scholars do. Now you need to answer this, that why most Islamic scholars does not interprets Qur’an the way you do?

Robert Spencer quotes Qur’an 9:29 to prove that Islam preaches believers to fight against non-believers because they are Non-Believers, but you tried to give your own interpretation to that verse.  As most of scholars of Islam support Robert’s view on that verse. Let’s start with the very verse 9:29, which says:-

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Now we need to look into historical background of this verse, and need to see why it was revealed. For that I’ll use some famous Tafsir by Islamic scholars. Ibn Kathir comments on this verse as:-

(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.) Therefore, when People of the Scriptures disbelieved in Muhammad , they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather, they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s Law and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad , because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion of earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets .

As I said earlier that most scholars do not interpret the Qur’anic verses as you do, and here we see Ibn Kathir gives another historical context for revelation of this verse. It is not as you said, that the Christians were violent and in clear and present danger, that’s not the reason why the Jihad verses are there in Qur’an to confront that. Let’s see another scholar, ‘Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi’ he says:-

The series of events that have been discussed in this Surah took place after the Peace Treaty of Hudaibiyah. By that time, one-third of Arabia had come under the sway of Islam which had established itself as a powerful, well organized and civilized Islamic State. This Treaty afforded further opportunities to Islam to spread its influence in the comparatively peaceful atmosphere created by it. After this Treaty, two events took place, which led to very important results.

Further he says:-

If we keep in view the preceding background, we can easily find out the problems that were confronting the Community at that time. They were:

  1. to make the whole of Arabia a perfect Dar-ul-Islam,
  2. to extend the influence of Islam to the adjoining countries,
  3. to crush the mischiefs of the hypocrites, and
  4. to prepare the Muslims for Jihad against the non- Muslim world.
  1. Now that the administration of the whole of Arabia had come in the hands of the Believers, and all the opposing powers had become helpless, it was necessary to make a clear declaration of that policy which was to be adopted to make her a perfect Dar-ul-Islam. Therefore the following measures were adopted:
    1. A clear declaration was made that all the treaties with the mushriks were abolished and the Muslims would be released from the treaty obligations with them after a respite of four months.(vv. 1-3). This declaration was necessary for uprooting completely the system of life based on shirk and to make Arabia exclusively the center of Islam so that it should not in any way interfere with the spirit of Islam nor become an internal danger for it.
    2. A decree was issued that the guardianship of the Ka`abah, which held central position in all the affairs of Arabia, should be wrested from the mushriks and placed permanently in the hands of the Believers, (vv. 12-18) that all the customs and practices of the shirk of the era of ‘ignorance’ should be forcibly abolished: that the mushriksshould not be allowed even to come near the “House” (v. 28). This was to eradicate every trace of shirk from the “House” that was dedicated exclusively to the worship of Allah.
    3. The evil practice of Nasi, by which they used to tamper with the sacred months in the days of ‘ignorance’, was forbidden as an act of kufr(v. 37). This was also to serve as an example to the Muslims for eradicating every vestige of the customs of ignorance from the life of Arabia (and afterwards from the lives of the Muslims everywhere).
  2. In order to enable the Muslims to extend the influence of Islam outside Arabia, they were enjoined to crush with sword the non- Muslim powers and to force them to accept the sovereignty of the Islamic State. As the great Roman and Iranian Empires were the biggest hindrances in the way, a conflict with them was inevitable. The object of Jihad was not to coerce them to accept Islam they were free to accept or not to accept it-but to prevent them from thrusting forcibly their deviations upon others and the coming generations. The Muslims were enjoined to tolerate their misguidance only to the extent that they might have the freedom to remain misguided, if they chose to be so, provided that they paid Jizyah (v. 29) as a sign of their subjugation to the Islamic State.

Isn’t this enough historical evidences from Islamic scholars, who clearly states that the verse we are discussing was revealed to extend influence of Islam outside Arabia.

Waiting for your reply.



Nadir Ahmed claims another victory, part II

2 thoughts on “Nadir Ahmed claims another victory.

  1. Look at Malaysia and go to google and search on Malaysia today and see what Muslims does where they are the majority. When there is a call for election reform called “Bersih” which means clean in Malay, many of the ruling coalition Muslims instead fought hard against it and instead support the corrupted Muslim gov’t. What happened to the poor and the weak that is being attacked by the Arab Sudan North against the South by raping the Women? I did not heard you conderm against the violence Nadir. Where were you?

  2. Pingback: Debate:- Nadir Ahmed with Robert Spencer « The False Prophet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s