Sam Shamoun: The Hypocrite
I have demonstrated several times in my articles how Shamoun employs double standards when he attempts to critique Islam. However, Shamoun has recently shown his hypocrisy in an extremely glaring fashion.
Shamoun criticizes Muslim apologists and me in specific for appealing to liberal Christian scholars:
Christians aren't the only ones familiar with Lewis' Trilemma. Muslim polemicists are also aware of this and realize the ramification that Lewis' apologetic has on the truth claims of Islam which denies the Deity of Christ. Not surprisingly these same Muslim dawagandists quickly run to critical liberal scholarship to undermine Lewis' defense of Christ's Divinity. They appeal to disbelieving scholars in order to attack the reliability of the NT so as to convince their constituents that the Divine claims attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are fabricated and were never uttered by the historical Jesus. However, these same Muslim "apologists" do not realize (or simply do not care) the kind of impact that such unbelieving scholarship has on their own Islamic beliefs. The Muslims are inconsistently applying the criticisms and arguments of liberal scholars against the Holy Bible and yet never bother to apply these same arguments against their own views; nor do they stop to think for a moment of how these assaults against the NT affect their Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus.
One such Muslim propagandist who inconsistently appeals to liberal scholarship is Bassam Zawadi. Zawadi has written a short "reply" whereby he seeks to show the fallacy inherent in Lewis' reasoning. (Sam Shamoun, Examining the Muslim criticism of C. S. Lewis' Trilemma, Source)
First of all, inconsistency does not follow that an argument is "flawed." It could be that someone is inconsistent, yet correct in the argument he/she makes, say, for example, pertaining to the New Testament. So then, one of the two arguments of an inconsistent person could still be accurate.
Secondly, Muslim apologists also heavily utilize the works of conservative scholars and do not only restrict themselves to citing liberals.
Thirdly, just because someone is a disbeliever that does not mean that his argument is incorrect. A disbeliever could still be right in the argument/claim he/she makes/presents. In scholarship it does not matter if someone is liberal or conservative. Only the arguments matter. A liberal person could make a correct argument and a conservative person could make a flawed argument (and vice versa). The veracity of an argument is not questioned by the beliefs, or the lack thereof, of the one making the argument.
Fourthly, Shamoun makes a vague and problematic comment. How does any "assault" upon the NT affect any Islamic beliefs pertaining to Jesus? Shamoun has not demonstrated this. Shamoun erroneously assumes that a liberal scholar's argument against the New Testament could be successful against Islam if consistently applied. He also erroneously assumes that Muslims appeal to every single argument that liberal scholars throw at the New Testament and agree with all the presuppositions that liberal scholars have.
Shamoun has criticized us for appealing to liberal and "disbelieving" scholars, yet what does he do? Look at what he said in one his articles (bold emphasis mine):
This is a point which even Muslims agree with. For instance, in his comments on Q. 5:44 the late Rashad Khalifa wrote:
*5:44 The Torah is a collection OF ALL THE SCRIPTURES revealed through all the prophets of Israel prior to Jesus Christ, i.e., TODAY'S OLD TESTAMENT. NOWHERE in the Quran do we find THAT THE TORAH WAS GIVEN TO MOSES. (Source; capital emphasis ours) (Sam Shamoun, The Arrogance and Ignorance of Bassam Zawadi, Source)
Oh dear God, did Sam Shamoun just appeal to Rashad Khalifa as a Muslim whose say means anything? For those of you who don't know who Rashad Khalifah is, he was someone who claimed to be a messenger of God! Shamoun is appealing to someone who falsely claimed to be a messenger of God and has been declared a disbeliever unanimously by all Muslim scholars as a Muslim authority! Furthermore, he is specifically citing Rashad Khalifah to support a certain argument, which could only be argued for by supporting Qur'an only beliefs. This is obviously rejected in orthodox Islam. If Shamoun wants us Muslims to accept a false messenger as a Muslim whose opinion matters then that means Muslims could cite Joseph Smith as a Christian against Shamoun! That would definitely discredit many of Shamoun's beliefs. Surely Shamoun would never accept such a thing from Muslim apologists, yet why does he expect us to accept this from him? The answer: Shamoun is a hypocrite who applies double standards.
As usual, Shamoun employs double standards and is a hypocrite for all to see.
Return to Refuting Sam Shamoun
Return to Homepage