This debate will be interesting to watch, because from my recollection with his debate with Dinesh D'Souza here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-G-GT2gMoE regarding if Islam is a religion of peace, Robert appealed to the earliest followers of Muhmmmad and Muhmmad himself to demostrate that it isn't a reliogion of peace but of terrorism.
Seem to appear that Robert was appealing to Muhmmad and his followers as actual historical figures each actually existed in history and caused violent acts. Even Robert claims that he doesn't necessarily believe those sources and events are historical events but are simply narrated within the sources of Islam.
Just how does he reconcile saying Muhmmad never existed and appealing to the earliest stranda of data which includes Muhmmad and his early followers to demostrate to the public the true face of Islam, which presuppoes Muhmmad and his earliest follwers actually existed and caused violent acts?
No comments:
Post a Comment