Some Notes On Sam Shamoun’s Lowly Character

Recently I came across email exchanges that took place between Jalal Abualrab and the Christian missionary Sam Shamoun. I have heard that the missionary Shamoun is a very abusive, malicious and nasty individual, constantly mocking and abusing Islam as his hobby. After reading the mail exchanges, it became clear to me that this missionary is indeed a very arrogant and abusive person. I was surprised to see that Katz, who generally maintains a polite tone, did not say a word to condemn Shamoun’s abusive behaviour.

In this paper I would like to comment upon the discussion and offer my own perspective, views and observations as a reader.

Sam Shamoun is a polemical writer for the Answering Islam website, particularly well known for his chaotic behaviour. For example see:

  • Answering Islam?s sincere apology REJECTED by Nadir Ahmed.
    The missionary apologised to Nadir Ahmed for being insultive, rude and abusive in his e-mails. He wrote “It was wrong of me to insult and ridicule Nadir, his prophet and his religion. I need to debate and evangelize with a more respectful attitude towards those I disagree with.” However, shortly after submitting this apology, and admitting that he had been quite abusive, the missionary was caught on Paltalk defending the abusive conduct of a fellow Christian who was being insultive towards Muslims and using foul language. Interestingly, he used the example of Jesus to justify being abusive towards Muslims: “Even the Lord Jesus was harsh and cruel to people who disserved it because of their stiff neck sinful pride blasphemous ways? (applicable to Muslims today)”
  • He does not know how to conduct a proper polite discussion. For example, see his conversation with Nadir Ahmed on Paltalk.
  • More recently, Sami Zaatri of Answering Christianity has published some emails sent to him by Shamoun as well as commented upon his demeaning behaviour in general:

Answering Islam seem to have been quite embarrassed and thus they had at first falsely accused Sami of making up the e-mails, but later had to acknowledge that the e-mails were indeed authentic. But I wonder why they were “shocked” to think that Shamoun could not be responsible for such foul emails? Did they so quickly “forget” the phony apology issued by Shamoun some time ago precisely for being extremely abusive?

More amazingly, after abusing Sami — who never abused or insulted Shamoun, even in the mails — to his heart’s delight, abusing his mother, mocking and insulting Islam and Prophet Muhammed(P)says to Sami, “Boy you gotta be steaming mad …” Clearly, something is very, very wrong with this person and it is most likely that he is mentally unstable. People facing psychological and other mental problems often give into self-deception and falsely accuse others of having their own personal traits and carrying out their own conduct.

Imagine all this abuse coming from one who is supposed to be a missionary and an evangelist, whose purpose in life is to “spread” Christianity and bring Muslims – whom he, as we all know by now, hates to death – to “the Gospel”! Is he doing a “service” for Christianity with his chaotic behaviour or disgracing his own people and religion? You decide.

Moving on, Jalal Abualrab is the author and translator of many books – see his website. Recently Brother Jalal had a brief debate with another very nasty and mean missionary, Craig Winn, available here. This debate was certainly a major humiliation for Craig Winn, who was utterly incapable of defending his views.

Coming to our topic, I wish to examine the character and behaviour of the missionary as it comes out from his e-mail exchanges with Brother Jalal. The abuses we find in these emails are certainly not as sever as the ones in other emails, some of which have been published by Sami. Nonetheless, they are quite offensive and insultive. Compare the two and you will immediately see the difference: Shamoun was overly insultive, abusive, sneerful, and was constantly mocking Islam and Prophet Muhammed (P) and adopted an arrogant behviour. Bro. Jalal, on the other, remained largely polite and did not hit back by stooping down to Shamoun’s level.

Imagine, if a person is this insultive in e-mails that he intends to publish, then how much more abusive is he likely to be in mails he does not wish or expect to be published? Well, again we can see the e-mails he sent to Sami.1 Clearly, we are dealing with a very nasty , big and a foul mouthed individual who does not know at all how to behave in a civil fashion. So much for his “I will do my best to remain civil ” charade. I wonder how the “cause” of Christianity is served with the assistance of such a lowly and cheap character?

The e-mail exchanges between Bro. Jalal and Shamoun are also a good indicator of the missionary Shamoun’s behaviour and character, demonstrating that we are dealing with a mentally unstable person. Instantly he began sending sneerful comments to Br Jalal and created this hostile atmosphere, demanding Br Jalal accept all of the his conditions for a debate. Please note:

    1. The missionary started the abuse.
    2. The topic of these emails is the debate that the missionary ran away from.
    3. Other rude and abusive emails by the missionary may be posted later.
    4. Brother Jalal has stopped emailing the missionary, but he keeps emailing him even after he was told to stop.

Amazingly, the email exchanges were put up on Answering Islam here. A long introduction is offered by Jochen Katz, who writes a lot but says nothing about his friend Shamoun’s behaviour. 2 My purpose here is simply to comment upon the missionary Sam Shamoun’s character.

The E-Mail Exchange

I present the e-mails first, with some relevant comments, followed by a general examination of some of the issues discussed.

1. Shamoun’s first email:

From: “sam shamoun”
To: ;
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 4:06 PM

It would be a privlege for me to defeat you in a debate.
Here is the topic: Is Muhammad a true Prophet or was he deceived by Satan?
We can do it live on Paltalk, much like the other debates:
http://abrahamic-faith.com/debates.html…Let us shoot for sometime in February since I will be busy until then. So now put up or shut up. I eagerly await your response because I want to see if your bite matches your bark.

Sam

P.S. I am saving these emails just in case you run like the others and start making excuses.

[Comments: Notice already the hostility, “put up or shut up”; “if your bite matches your bark”; “you run like others and start making excuses” …note also the topic of the proposed debate. He is warming up, this is the tip of the iceberg…see how he builds up the rudeness.]

Jalal’s response:

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:11 PM

To sam shamoun:

i did not challenge you to run away from debate; this is not my style. i was looking for a live debate between me and both of you: winn and shamoun. winn, as usual, does not want the challenge. yet, i will give you the opportunity to defeat me in a debate, if you can, so let us talk about the format. you want to prove that muhammad was deceived by satan, so be it. i
hope you will not do as other evangelists did when talk about a debate
became serious: they started telling me i can talk only from islam’s point
of view. i look forward yo hearing from you. and if we ever debate, i hope
you come prepared to put up, or else shut up.

jalal abualrub

2. Shamoun’s second email

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:16 PM

My man,

I am prepared NOW to debate you on this subject. So let’s get the negotiations underway.

The topic, which you have accepted, is:

Was Muhammad a true Prophet or deceived by Satan?

Now, wnat you need to do is go to paltak.com and download it, it is free, and sign up. Once you do, you add my name- Answerig Islam.

When you go through this procedure, let me know and email me your name. And then we will see what this Evangelist will do to you by God’s grace. Keep bragging about what other Evangelists have done, since this will make it all the more worthwhile for me to silence your big mouth. Make sure you do this so we can then negotiate the date and format. Don’t run since you now got me excited to educate you about your deen. Jesus is Lord!

Sam

[Comments: His anger is increasing. Interestingly he accuses Br Jalal of “bragging” whereas he’s the one who boasted and bragged in his very first mail. He is getting more hostile now, see the reference to silencing Br. Jalal’s “big mouth”; the threat of what the he would do to Br Jalal…so who exactly has the big mouth? Plus the ending of the mail, the “Jesus is lord” comment, missing in the first mail. What purpose did this comment serve other than to provoke?]

Br. Jalal’s response.

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:32 PM

jesus was never lord, allah always was and will always be. i will do what
you suggested and then we should talk about the debate’s format and date.
yet, i tell you, i have met and debated many evangelists in my life, i have
never seen more abusive people like you and winn. please, keep up the abuse
so that even your audience will know that this is all what you have, abuse
and arrogance.

jalal

[Comments: Well, the audience, Muslims and Christians alike, surely know now!]

3. Shamoun’s third e-mail

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:36 PM

Allah of the Quran doesn’t exist. Jesus does exist and has always been Lord. In fact, after I defeat you in our first debate, please challenge me to debate on the Deity of Christ according to the Bible. Anyway, I will show you what I am all about come debate night, just as soon as you sign up on Paltalk. Till then, I will be eagerly awaiting for you. Take care.

Sam

[Comments: He is getting mad and angry. Notice again his empty boasts and rude provocations.]

Br. Jalal’s response:

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 5:52 PM

i do not need this kind of debate before the real debate, so please restrain
yourself, stop the advance abuse and let us meet in a real debate where i
expect you to bring your very, very best evidence. until then, please keep
the civility of this exchange. i am also keeping all of these emails in the
memory of my computer.

[Comments: Will the missionary learn? Let’s find out]

4. Br Jalal’s email of a live debate proposal:

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 6:45 PM

i opened a paltalk account: nickname: Prophet of Mercy…
feb, as you suggested earlier, is far away…i am looking for a late
december live debate, and i do mean live: in a hall in front of live
audience, with us free to alert the media…i want to give you the
opportunity to truly destroy me…

jalal

[Comments: Nothing rude above, he presents the offer politely, look how the missionary reacts.]

Shamoun’s reaction:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
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. Now you better not start making excuses and run away since I will expose you on the site. You talk big but now show me what you got.

So make plans for February ON PALTALK.

Sam

[Comments: Just curious, why is he eager to avoid a live debate in front of a live audience in a hall and instead is only keen on pursuing a debate on Paltalk? Also notice the angry manner of his reaction, as if he is screaming in front of the computer screen.]

5. Br. Jalal’s response

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:12 PM

you are amazing, you went directly to abuse then to pre-conditions, then to abuse…i was not looking for this paltalk stuff, i wanted to let people see
you talk…any way, you seem to be afraid of live debates…i accept your
paltalk challenge, but no more pre-conditions…send me your suggestions,
because i want to be as lenient as i can with you so that you do not have an
excuse to call it off…finally, i think you would agree with me to this
invocation: i ask the creator of all that exists to utterly expose as a liar
the one among us who is the liar

jalal

[Comments: For some unknown reason, the missionary is refusing to have an actual live debate. Nonetheless, Br Jalal still accepts his Paltalk demand]

Shamoun’s reaction:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: An Open Challenge to Craig Winn and Sam Shamoun
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:41 PM

You are more amazing. You ran your mouth about wanting to debate me. I accepted and told you we have a LIVE one on Paltalk (it seems that you couldn’t figure out that Paltalk is a live chat). I also said that I won’t be available until February. YOU AGREED AND ACCEPTED.

It seems you now are getting scared and are wanting to save face. But I won’t let you get away with it. You challenged, I ACCEPTED, AND NOW WE DEBATE. You better put up, since you challenged me.

Since you agreed to do a Paltalk one, knowing I would expose you if you ran (good for you for saving face), now agree to a date in February so I can shut your big mouth. What date is good for you?

And will this work: 40 minute opening statements.
15 minute rebuttals. 10 minute closing statements.

Then a cross-examination period where we ask one another a series of questions. Each person will have a minute to formulate the question, followed by a two minute response, then a 1 minute rebuttal. We can rotate the questions where you ask one then I ask one for a total of 4 questions each.

Then we end it with a Q&A period. We will be recording it so we can post your defeat on this site here for many years to come:

http://abrahamic-faith.com/debates.html

So put up loudmouth and let me know if you agree to the format. Enough of your games.

Sam

[Comments: The missionary is obviously fond of using the word “big mouth”, probably because he is a big mouth and loves running his foul mouth. He is now more angry and is spewing all the sneerful and rude comments he can think of…why did the offer of a live debate in a hall inflame him to this extreme? Moreover, he seems not to have read Br. Jalal’s acceptance of the paltalk demand. So who is really “running away” from debate?]

6. Br. Jalal’s debate offer

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: My Final Offer
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:25 PM

To Sam Shamoun: This is my final offer?

You are tyrannical, aren’t you? I tolerated your dictating the date of the
debate, or else if I did not agree you will tell the people that I(!) walked
away from the debate, and the media of the debate, or else?, and the topic
of the debate, which is rather broad (so you can fill your 40 minutes with
tens of your false accusations; then I won?t have the time to answer them
all while you boast to your audience that you defeated me because I did not
answer them all). I agreed to all of this to see where it ends. You also
filled your emails with filthy abuse of my Quran and the Creator of
everything, then turned around and preached to me your bible stuff. I did
not respond in kind because I am nothing like your kind. I did not dwell on
your statement: “I am prepared NOW to debate you on this subject”.

Now listen man: stop the hysterical games and agree to this, since I agreed
to just about everything else you dictated, then agree to this: You talk for
2-3 minutes and raise only one issue at a time, and I respond in 2-3
minutes. We can spend 90-100 minuets doing this, on equal terms, then allow
the audience a Q&A; I get the same number of questions you get and each one
of us answers his Q in 3 minutes. Now it is your turn to agree, or else,
you will be cowering away from the debate and I will announce to the world
your stance and the coward you are. Saturday, February 5th, 2005 is the
date when I will expose your lies, by Allah?s help. Now it is your turn to
put or shut up, and to stop dictating all the terms of the debate. You have
until tomorrow, Wednesday, 5 PM (EST) to respond to this email, or else, the
whole world will read our emails, and let them decide who is more unjust
than the other.

Finally, have a shred of decency and shame man and stop this abuse and the
foul words you use, you are a no-good representative of your faith because
of your aggressive demeanor. Have some shame man, have some shame.

Jalal Abualrub

[Comments: Clearly Br. Jalal is shocked at the missionary’s behaviour. As he states, the topic proposed by the missionary, “Is Muhammad a true Prophet or was he deceived by Satan?”, is so broad and wide ranging that virtually everything can be debated under it. Presumably, the missionary desired to select such a broad topic simply to “scrore points” – to shoot dozens of polemics so the opponent really has no time to respond to them all in his allotted time. Br Jalal, on the other hand, proposes a reasonable plan to deal with such a topic, namely, to discuss every item one at a time and then moving on to the next item. This way, every topic will be given the due time of discussion.]

Shamoun’s response:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: RE: My Final Offer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 12:12 AM

LOL! Yes, your true colors show. First off, you ran your mouth and lied when you told people to ask why I didn’t want to debate you. How could I ever not want to debate you when you never even approached me until today? So I called your bluff.

Second, you were the one that said Jesus wasn’t Lord, so you were insulting my Lord. I told the truth, Allah of Islam is not real. He doesn’t exist. So you can keep praying to him all you want. Yet because my Lord is real he now exposed you. Had you not lied to your readers on the site, I would have considered not approaching you s directly. But I don’t put up with lies and deceit very well.

You requested equal time in your debate challenge. You said nothing about two-three minute tid-bits. Sorry, but your two-three minute snippets are a nice cop-out. You wanted a debate, and I gave you a legitmate debate format. I know the typical Muslim lies and excuses often used in avoiding engaing in a moderated debate of this nature, and it won’t work.

You have another chance of agreeing to an actual debate format, not one where you can avoid getting exposed for your lies.

And you will have till tommorrow, 5 p.m. to agree. Otherwise the whole world will see how another Muslim coward out of defending his prophet. And Alalh of Islam can’t help you since he doesn’t even exist. I am not trying to be mean, but honest. The clock is clicking my man, so better save face and agree to defend your prophet.

Sam

[Comments: Yawn. Clearly, Br Jalal’s request to the missionary to maintain some decency in email exchanges and refrain from being abusive fell on deaf ears. The missionary exposes his prejudice towards Muslims through his generalization – the comment “typical Muslim lies and excuses”. Moreover, he again starts mocking Islam and throws around cheapish snide little provocative comments even though Br Jalal was quite polite in all his emails and was not mockful or rude towards Christianity or Christian beliefs. The missionary obviously does not know how to behave in a decent manner when corresponding with others, especially those outside of his faith. Even more interesting, he is clearly in no mood to have a point by point discussion where every item is discussed one at a time. So who is “running away” from the debate? For Shamoun, it’s either his way or no way.]

7. Br. Jalal’s response

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: My Final Offer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 9:43 AM

So you refuse to debate me, Sam! You are the one who started preaching by
saying Jesus is lord, an awful statement that shows your paganism; I have
your email showing its date and time. I will post all the emails today
unless you agree to debate me by 5 PM. You are the one who is refusing to
debate me, even though you dictated all of the format except one. You are a
coward, just a common coward. Why do you avoid talking about issues: is it
because you are afraid of being exposed one issue at a time, since you have
no idea how to defend your ideas with other than abuse and packing lies in
herds so that I do not have the time to address all those issues. Listen, I
agreed to every one of your demands, and this is a debate, where
negotiations take place not you dictating everything. But you want to
dictate it all the way. I state that you are ignorant and that by intention
you distort islam, so are you man enough to defend your views? As for your
foul-mouth speech, you are just a common coward with no sense of honor or
decency. Defend your idea about Muhammad and stop all these pre-conditions, games and delays. You refused to debate me, and this is the truth.

[Comments: Right on!]

Another angry reaction from Shamoun:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: My Final Offer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:01 AM

You have been hanging around Nadir, so it is little wonder you got afraid and started running from your challenge to me. He did the same after I beat him.

[Comments: The debate between Nadir Ahmed and the missionary is available here. We implore the reader to decide for themselves. Interestingly, after his debate with Nadir, the missionary outright refused to debate him further. Why? Because he “won”? Amusing!]

I will be the one posting all the emails to expose that you were only trying to save face, but when cornered, you ran. First, the pagan was Muhammad, not Jesus, since he founded his religion on paganism inspired by Satan. That is why you won’t debate me by agreeing to a normal debate format, since you know your lies won’t stand cross examination.

Second, Jesus is Lord, and I offered to debate you on this topic after I defeat you regarding Muhammad.

Let me repeat. You challenged me, running your mouth arrogantly.

[Comments: In this e-mail, Shamoun ran his mouth and Br Jalal only reacted, even then very politely and not half as arrogantly as Shamoun. Moreover, in the initial challenge, Br. Jalal was at no time arrogant and abusive as this actual big mouth missionary.]

I accepted. You asked for equal time. I gave you equal time

[Comments: The missionary presents himself as this “giver” who is “giving” to others what they don’t deserve. Talk about arrogance and dreaming. Instead, he presented demands, all accepted by Br. Jalal, but with one exception – he wants every issue to be discussed one at a time, something not acceptable to the missionary].

But thanks for amditting[sic!] that no matter how much time you get, whether 40 minutes, an hour, you still can’t provide enough evidence to vindicate Muhammad’s false claims and lies. Thank you for indirectly admitting this since I am sure our readers will love to see another Muslim too ashamed to defend Muhammad.

If you want to make it an hour for each, 20 minute rebuttals, and 10 minute closng statements, that’s fine by me. If you want to lessen it, that’s fine by me. Anything to get you to accept a norma debate format so I can show how utterly weak the Muslim case truly is.

Anyway, your next email better be an acceptance of a regular format, otherwise I will post all the emails to expose how another Muslim took off running

[Comments: We are, of course, very happy for the posting of the e-mails since the missionary only helped us prove how unstable he is. His low IQ only serves to benefit us.].

I don’t blame you. I would do the same if I had to defend Muhammad’s claims.

I praise the Lord Jesus for exposing your real motive in challenging to debate me. You never had any intention of doing so, and now your fears and smokescreen have been exposed after accepting your fraud proposal. You shouldn’t make your cowardice so obvious since now all the readers will see it.

Sam

[Comments: Well, see for yourself that this guy simply does not know how to behave. Notice his mocks, sneers, snides, abuses and insults aimed towards Islam and Prophet Muhammed (P). In all of his mails, Bro. Jalal never behaved in such a lowly fashion, never mocked Christianity or Christian beliefs in this way, despite being repeatedly provoked by the missionary. Instead, Br Jalal tried his best to ignore the abuses and whatever he said in his mails is not even remotely comparable with the sneer, scorn and snide in the missionary’s emails. The missionary takes particular delight in spewing blasphemous remarks, and in aiming insultive, degrading, abusive and sneer ridden comments towards Muslim beliefs and individuals held dear by Muslims. However, his abuses do not “harm” God and His last and final Messenger, Muhammed (P), they only help us expose this guys chaotic and deeply troubled mindset.

Also note how he couldn’t get into his head the simple point that a dozen polemics cannot be fully covered in the format demanded by him.]

8. Bro. Jalal’s response to Shamoun’s abusive e-mail:

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: My Final Offer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:10 AM

nadir has nothing to do with it, do you want to debate or not_

And….

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: look at it this way
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:19 AM

look at it this way: if you keep running away from me, you will never know
how good it will feel to defeat a muslim who wrote 65 books and who has been
an imam for 25 years…you can boast about it for years to come…you have
not met a serious challenger yet, so stop the games, you dictated all the
terms: this the format i want because this way i can tackle your issues one
by one and let the listner decide who is lying and who is not, do you still
refuse to debate me…

[Comments: Note how Jalal, being a sober and respectful individual, ignored all the insults, abuses, mocks and blasphemous comments thrown by the missionary in his pevious mails. Note also he didn’t hit back by insulting Christian beliefs and Christianity the way the missionary did with Islam (who did it out of the blue). This shows the character of Br. Jalal and the lowly and vile character of Shamoun. Also, Br. Jalal is almost begging Shamoun for a debate. He accepts all of Shamoun’s demands, but wants only this: to discuss one item at a time. The missionary, of course, has no desire to have such a debate, else how else will he give the misleading impression that he “won”?]

Shamoun’s reaction:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: My Final Offer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:19 AM

Are you playing games with me? Did you even read my last email? YES I WANT TO DEBATE AND REFUTE YOUR CLAIMS!!!! Do you want a serious debate by having a real debate format or not? Enough of your silly games. Tell me what you want, whether 40 minutes, 15, 10 or 1 hour, 20, 15 or 30, 10, 5 etc.

Stop wasting my time and get on with it since I want to announce the debate on our website. You have one more chance to accept or not. Then you go on the block list and I post our email exchanges.

Sam

[Comments: Clearly, he is in no mood for a debate where every topic is discussed one at a time. He wants every to accept his demands, or else….Why the hesitation to have a point by point debate? Afterall, Br Jalal wants to discuss every issue, but not in one go where everything is packed and thrown together, making is impossible to discuss every item. This is precisely what the missionary wants since his intention is not sincere and he isn’t interested in the truth.]

Another email by missionary Shamoun:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: RE: look at it this way
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:23 AM

Look at it this way. If you are not brave enough to accept a real debate format, then you will be exposed for not being willing to debate someone who is nothing more than an amateur Apologist. And yet if you do accept, then your 25 years of Imamate, and all your books, will be exposed as nothing more than a scam since an amateur will have exposed the lie of Islam by the grace of the Lord Jesus. And you couldn’t do anything about it.

I await your email where you accept the debate format or not.

Sam

[Comments: Again he repeats his unjustified and unfair demands and couldn’t resist sneaking in another mockful, malicious and insultive comment despite Br. Jalal’s polite responses.]

9. Bro. Jalal’s response

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Re: My Final Offer

Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:28 AM

agree to the debate man and stop all the nonsense: you dictated the date,
the media and the topic, all what i ask for is the issue by issue debate, do
you still refuse?

Shamoun’s reaction:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: Re: My Final Offer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:36 AM

Ok. This last email is all the proof I needed to expose your scam. You obviously are too afraid to debate me and wanted to find a way to save face. You talked big, but when push came to shove, you couldn’t match the talk.

You now go on my block list and I will ask Jochen Katz to post the emails showing how you got too scraed to debate me. How shameful that a man with your experience choose to run as oppossed to defend Muhammad. If you do decide to accept the challenge and agree to a real debate format, email Jochen, and I will be more than happy to expose your pseudo-scholarship. Jesus is indeed Lord forever!

Sam

[Comments: Shamoun’s e-mails would be a gold mine for psychologists. For instance, he has been bragging, boasting, insulting and mocking from the start, yet he convinces himself that Br Jalal did all these even though he did not. Shamoun “talked big” from the start, for instance, boasting what he would do to Br. Jalal etc. Yet he convinces himself that Br. Jalal was “talking big”! Brother Jalal accepted all of Shamoun’s demands and Shamoun couldn’t accept just one request, namely, to have a point by point discussion where every issue is discussed one at a time. He then has to audacity to lie that Brother Jalal is “afraid to debate” him. LOL! Clearly, we are not dealing with a mentally stable person…we seriously think Shamoun needs immediate psychological help to rid him of his delusions, day dreams and self-deceptions.]

10. Brother Jalal’s response:

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: So Refusal is Your Final Answer
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:58 AM

so refusal is your final answer?_

[Comments: He certainly knows how to make Shamoun boil with anger :) ]

Shamoun’s reply:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: RE: So Refusal is Your Final Answer

Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:01 AM

So backing down and not having the courage of your convictions is yours? I figured. Winn stands vindicated. Bye.

Sam

[Comments: Yawn….]

11. Br. Jalal’s email

From: “Madinah Center”
To: “sam shamoun”
Subject: Shamoun Stands in Refusal of a Debate
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:07 AM

i can take you both, you and winn, at the same time…i demolished some of
winns’s lies in my new book, i do not think you have the courage to read
it…as for winn, he is a coward just like you and refused to debate me from
the beginning…you have until 5 PM: you dictated the date, the media and
the topic: agree to the format man and stop all this wasting of my time…

12. Shamoun’s reaction:

From: “sam shamoun”
To:
Subject: RE: Shamoun Stands in Refusal of a Debate
Date: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:18 AM

Only in your dreams did you refute Winn. I glanced through your rebuttals, and if this is what you can produce, then it is no wonder you ran from debating me. I would to if I wrote the stuff you did. So Winn was right, you are a coward, and this is why you can only pretend to want to debate people. We will now publish the emails showing how you weren’t willing to accept a real debate format. Thanks for running away. I knew you would.

Sam

[Comments: More insults, nothing of substance besides empty boasts. In short, he is definitely in no mood to debate Br Jalal if all the issues are to be discussed item by item. Insterestingly, Shamoun and his hero Craig Winn began bickering with each other on the topic of the Trinity, since Craig does not believe in the Trinity! So for Shamoun, Craig would be a “heretic”! (to quote Katz: “Winn and Shamoun are not only from different churches, they disagree on some essential doctrines.”). Also, Shamoun jumped instantly like a monkey in defence of Craig because, like him, Craig also happens to be a rather abusive and vulgar character.]

Finally, notice how the missionary completely ignored the following by Br. Jalal:

. . .I think you would agree with me to this invocation: I ask the Creator of all that exists to utterly expose as a liar the one among us who is the liar.

So that’s the end of the e-mail exchanges between Shamoun and Br. Jalal. More might be added later. We believe that all readers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, will be able to clearly see that Shamoun is a mean and nasty individual, who does not know how to behave with civility and, instead, instantly starts abusing his opponents and mocking their religion with snide and sneerful remarks just to let out his inner furstrations against Islam and Muslims.

Such a demeaning, third-rate, malicious and appalling character is bad news for the propagation of the Christian religion (or any religion for that matter). For example, if I abuse you and your religion, mock people held dear by you, and throw around insultive names/comments (directed at your family as well), will you have any desire to learn about Islam with good intentions? Unlikely. Will you think of Muslims in a good light? Unlikely. Will you get a good impression of Islam and Muslims? Obviously not. This is what the missionary Shamoun does for Christianity. His behaviour is quite sufficient for people to walk away thinking the worst about Christianity and Christians.

We ask Christians, do you support his behaviour? Is this what Christianity preaches? That you insult others and their religion to “spread” the Gospel? Are you brave enough to condemn the missionary’s chaotic behaviour?

Finally, a final word to Muslims, not all Christians are alike. Missionary Sam Shamoun is one person, and his lowly character is not shared by all Christians. Therefore, please do not make generalizations. Many Christians tend to be polite even if they might disagree with you. This missionary is a disgrace to his own religion and people and we should view him as non-representative of mainstream Christians.

The Debate

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.

And only Allah knows best.

Footnotes

  1. Interestingly, the missionary was so deluded that he challenged Sami to post his next insultive emails on the website! []
  2. If a Muslim was behaving like Shamoun then we can be rest assured that Katz will be jumping around and make an issue out of it []

1 Comment

  1. wow! answering-islam must be really desperate relying upon such people!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *