It has become almost a way of life for Indian Dawah’s to pretend that they are ready to debate with SAN and then find some lame excuses to evade the debate. The Bengalaru based Dawah, the Discover Islam Educational Trust (DIET) is no exception to it.
DIET LIES AGAIN- Update
Part 3: (Please read the Part 1 and Part 2 given below before reading Part 3 for the full context).
For those who thought that DIET would not speak lies again about SAN after DIET was exposed, here is the update. After DIET unilaterally walked out of the debate and after the last correspondence between SAN and DIET on August 26, 2010 (please refer the last email in the chain, DIET on September 6, 2010 again lied by saying“DIET has already accepted the debate and sent the format but SAN seems to be getting little back with the format given (I don’t know why?)”. With the spirit of forgiveness, SAN yet again reached out to DIET asking them if they are interested in the debate but as usual they are not interested in debating with SAN (probably as SAN is trained in debating Dawah’s).
Twelve days after DIET walked out debate (August 26, 2010), Zahack Tanvir of DIET writes in Face Book to Adam on September 6, 2010 at 5:20 a.m.:Hi Adam,
Brother, someone from Kerala called up and sent mail to DIET regarding debate. DIET accepted and said to have panel discussion/debate for two days or at least 1 day. 2 hours public debate will not suffice the matter. Both the parties should be given equal amount of time to listen to each others questions and answer those properly.
If it is only 2 hours debate, then both the parties will throw questions at each other and will get very very less time to refute each other, hence making a commoner confused.
Moreover, panel debate will be more friendly rather than public debate. A fair panel debate with ample amount of time given to both the parties to listen and to clarify the points will be more helpful for both of them as well as for common people.
Moreover, equal number of participants should take part in the debate: if 50 participants are from the Christians’ side then there should be 50 from Muslims’ side. Both parties will have their own coordinator as well.
DIET has already accepted the debate and sent the format but SAN seems to be getting little back with the format given (I don’t know why?)
DIET also mentioned that it will be possible to have the event after Holy Month of Ramadan. However, DIET looks forward for the SANS’s response.
Your loving brother,
ZahackYou will notice that most of what Zahack of DIET wrote on September 6, 2010 is a bunch of lies.
LIE NO 1: Note that it was DIET who proposed FOUR Topics in a DAY wherein SAN proposed one topic in a day with adequate time for presentation and the rest of the day question and answer session. If you calculate DIET’s proposal of four topics in a day, even if you assume that you are going to debate eight hours excluding the time for breakfast, lunch, refreshments and dinner, you will have two hours for each topic. Now the same DIET says “If it is only 2 hours debate, then both the parties will throw questions at each other and will get very very less time to refute each other, hence making a commoner confused.”Remember it was SAN who wrote “Are you proposing 4 topics to be covered in one day? This definitely appears to be almost an impossible task.” However, DIET then insisted on covering four topics a day and wrote: “If you are interested in the format given by us, we shall proceed further.
Then SAN wrote: First and foremost, we can see your duplicity in suggesting four topics for a day and pretending as if you are interested in having an academic discussion.
Now, the same DIET sees a problem with two hours program.
LIE NO 2: DIET now writes: Moreover, panel debate will be more friendly rather than public debate. A fair panel debate with ample amount of time given to both the parties to listen and to clarify the points will be more helpful for both of them as well as for common people.
Please refer to the previous email chain given below and you will note that DIET changing its stand every now and then. In fact, though DIET initially said that they do not want public debate, you will see that DIET trying for a public debate with closed room panel discussion format (without rebuttal) and it is only after SAN insisted on public debate format for public debate, DIET completely backed out of the public debate.
LIE NO 3: DIET write on September 6, 2010 after they walked out of the debate on August 26, 2010 (refer to the previous email correspondences given below):
DIET has already accepted the debate and sent the format but SAN seems to be getting little back with the format given (I don’t know why?)
Now, SAN is familiar with Dawwahs' and their deceptive ways. DIET is not different from any other Dawwah. Knowing that Islam allows lying and Muslims as such call their god as Al Makar (The Deceiver), SAN understands that lying is a part and parcel of Dawah method. However, for the sake of a friendly dialogue, SAN wrote to DIET on September 7, 2010:
dateTue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:04 PM
subjectSept 6- Another Face Book Message from DIET?
hide details 7:04 PM (16 hours ago)
In the name of Yahweh, the only true name of God upon which all the true prophets are called, who in incarnation is known as Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess, be glorified for ever and ever.
Please see the attached screenshot from Face Book dated Sept 6, 2010. As such we do not understand why you are saying one thing to us and another in the Face Book. We came twice to you for organizing the Panel Debate and both the times it was not SAN who backed out as you may agree. How do you expect us react to your messages like this? Is it ethical on your part to speak like this?
However, for the sake of a friendly panel debate and for clarif
ying any misunderstandings Muslims and Christians have about each other, for one more time we are reaching out to you and we are ready to overlook this. Are you really interested in an academic Panel Debate as you mentioned in the Face Book (see the screenshot)? If yes, please respond at the earliest so that we can discuss the formalities and finalize a mutually convenient date and venue. If you are interested, we will also unpublish the report which we have given in our site with the note that SAN and DIET are going to have a Panel debate in the near future.
Thanks and regards,
However, without any remorse and shame for blatantly lying, DIET who wrote on September 6, 2010 “However, DIET looks forward for the SANS’s response” writes again September 7, 2010:
dateWed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:54 AM
subjectRE: Sept 6- Another Face Book Message from DIET?
Images from this sender are always displayed. Don't display from now on.
hide details 12:54 AM (10 hours ago)
ARE YOU INTERESTED IN DEBATE? Your earlier correspondence with us is inflamatory in nature. We dont want to end up in altercations with you on the stage. If there are any sincere christians seeking truth, do let us know of them. We are surely interested to debate with them.
But, not with you guys.
We urge Christians and Muslims to evaluate this correspondence with fairness and then make conclusions on why DIET does not want to debate with SAN and why they would continue to lie about it in public. They seem to be interested only in debating with Christians who not trained in comparative religions especially about Islam.
First, they walked out of the debate by insisting that only their format of covering FOUR TOPICS A DAY should be followed without considering SAN’s proposal to cover one topic a day. Then they were caught blatantly lying in a social network media (Face Book) saying “But SAN has not turned out yet; seems to be afraid of getting exposed in the Panel Debate” when we had already proposed one topic a day panel debate. After being caught red-handed, they reluctantly came forward only to walk out again because they were offended by one sentence in an email which was nothing but a blunt correction of DIET dubious method of changing their words every now and then. This ‘tenderhearted’ Dawah had no qualms in lying and changing their words but appears to be very sensitive to being caught and getting corrected in clear terms. Why can’t they simply admit that they are unfit to debate with SAN rather than citing hilarious reasons?
Summary of these email correspondence is given below.
On July 5, 2010, DIET wrote to SAN:“DIET, has organized several dialogues and debates in the past, with the purpose to reach to the truth alone, and not to establish supremacy over the members of the opposite party. Hence, we welcome the members from Sakshi to participate with us in a debate to understand each others' view points.
THE EVENT TITLED: CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM DIALOGUE… (SAKSHI & DIET)
The Topics discussed in the forum would be:
Is Jesus, the Messenger of ALLAH or Is Jesus GOD?
Bible or the Qur'an, which is God's word?
Muhammad the Messenger of Allah, yes or no?
Salvation in the light of Christianity and Islam….
Thanks for your gracious invite. While we are definitely interested in debates on a mutually agreeable format and date for mutually agreeable topic, we require the following clarifications from you:
1). Why are we going for a closed room discussion rather than a open public debate? If you have any reservations to public debate format, why not a public dialog as it would reach out to maximum number of people. We can reach on mutually agreeable format, if you are fine with public program.
2). Are you proposing 4 topics to be covered in one day? This definitely appears to be almost an impossible task. We suggest that we should club 'Is Jesus God, Is Muhammad a Prophet' as one topic and cover it with two people (max).
3). Are you proposing 10 minutes for paper presentation which appears to be very inadequate? Or is it for a cross questioning after the paper presentation? If yes, how much time are you proposing for paper presentation? If you are fine with a public debate/dialog, then the format would totally change.
In the future, while we hope to respond at the earliest, it may take two business days with Saturdays and Sundays as off for SAN.
Your brother in humanity,
George JohnBut DIET was in no mood to listen but stubbornly insisted on their format without considering any of SAN’s concern and wrote: Assalaamu'alaa manittaba alhudaa,
May Peace be on those who follow the Divine guidance.
The format given by us would enable us to focus on the discussion. We would want the questions to be raised for the answers to be given. We don't want to see a scenario where in only questions are raised, while not responding to them due to inadequate time. Hence, each perso
n in a team gets 10 mins. At an alternate basis the speakers would get their turn after the other speakers express their views. 10 mins of every hour is what each speaker gets to express.
This is the format that would let the audience to get an oppurtunity to get the answers for the questions raised. Unless the questions are answered, there would not be any scope for furthering with the discussion. And the audience will also be able to closely follow the discussions.
Public event is not what we are interested in. Inshaallaah, the videos will surely reach the public. The event in the hall would help us to discipline the gathering, and enable to maintain a decorum that is required for a religious dialogue.
If you are interested in the format given by us, we shall proceed further.
SAN responded by pointing out the closed mindedness of DIET which was clearly evident and offered to host the program if that was the reason for being closed minded. DIET having clearly and explicitly stated that they were not interested in a public debate, SAN did not insist it on any further but went ahead discussing the format about the closed-room dialog.
Taking into consideration of their reasons for the said format (time for question and answers, and enough time for audience to get answers for the questions), SAN wrote:No one has objection towards giving enough time for question and answers. However, the format requires paper presentation followed by question and answer session. Also, you have not responded to the question on shortlisting the topics. We offer that we debate on the topic "Is Jesus God and Is Muhammad a Prophet' with enough time for question and answer session. However, DIET stubbornly refused to consider any of the suggestions of SAN. DIET wrote: Look, our format is laid to derive maximum benefit out of it. Equal time for both the teams, from morning till night. You have all the time to present your point. As I said earlier, this is our format, if you are interested let us know. DIET pretends that a day is sufficient to cover four topics in an academic way!!! Or was it format intended not to have a conclusive dialog? SAN responded: “First and foremost, we can see your duplicity in suggesting four topics for a day and pretending as if you are interested in having an academic discussion. Do not assume that your Dawwah is offering us some academic opportunity. We gain nothing except the pleasure of silencing another set of sugar coated sophists. We have conducted programs in many reputable instutites in India (IIT Mumbai, St. Stephens, Delhi, University of Hyderabad, University of Baroda) apart from numerous open forums and three debates with three Dawwahs and silenced all those Dawwahs. So, we can see through your deceptive format of trying to run away with less time (four topics in a day!!!) and still claim to be interested in academic discussion” SAN then offered: If you are really interested in discussion, we offer the following format:
1) One and half our presentation from both sides on Is Jesus God and Is Muhammad a Prophet of True God?
2) Rest of the entire day for question and answer session by a panel of scholars
We offer to organize it. Are you ready?Please note that this format was proposed only after DIET explicitly stated that they are not interested in a public debate. The format DOES NOT have a rebuttal which is NECESSARY for a public debate. Further, an entire day was suggested for question and answer session which is again not suited for a public debate.
Though DIET responded to this email by copying and pasting some baseless allegations on the Holy Bible which in turn was a response to the side discussions which were simultaneously happening in the same correspondence, DIET completely avoided responding to the format. SAN responded to this email on July 7, 2010 itself by citing that all their allegations against the Holy Bible are meanings imposed on the text but charges against Muhammad are literal reading of Islamic authoritative texts.
DIET never responded to this email again. As such we left the issue and did not bother to publish the correspondence in the website for the public to read. That turned out to be a mistake from our side.Part 2:
Probably on August17, 2010 (just one month after the last correspondence) DIET was seen lying and boasting in the social network media, Face Book, with the following words:“DIET Bangalore has already accepted invitation to have debate; but SANS seem to be scared with the format given by DIET. It has been more than 2 months DIET has invited for debate with SANS in Bangalore on the expense of DIET itself. But SAN has not turned out yet; seems to be afraid of getting exposed in the Panel Debate.” Now, look at the lies this Dawah propagates:
– SAN was never scared about the format but saw the foolishness of having four topics on a day. SAN proposed ONE topic a day with presentation and Panel discussion. It was DIET who never turned out for that format but DIET goes to Face Book and lies about it.
– Email correspondence between DIET and SAN started on July 5, 2010 and ended on July 7, 2010. DIET lied in the face book hardly after one month and as per DIET “it has been more than 2 months”. More than 2 months!!!
– SAN too offered to o
rganize the program at SAN’s expense but DIET hides that fact completely.
One of our well-wishers immediately took a screenshot of DIET lies and sent it to us verifying what had happened. SAN immediately contacted DIET forwarding again the full text of earlier email in which SAN had proposed the dialog format.
DIET came back saying we never proposed the format. But SAN reiterated that SAN had the sent the format but DIET again wrote on August 20.“We have not lied. The format that you sent on "Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:29:55 +0530" was not sent earlier. Not on June , nor on July. Verily, Allah is truly aware of the liars.”
Remember, this is after SAN forwarding the email which was already sent and there was no way of not being aware of it. Now, SAN forwarded the response email which DIET had sent, nailing any further possibility of lying that DIET had overlooked the email. There was no option for DIET but to admit its deception. After being cornered, DIET admitted on August 20, 2010: DIET ADMITS LYING BUT TRIES TO COVER IT
Sorry for the inconvenience brought to you.You are right, you had given the topic and the format on July 7th, 2010.
I sincerely apologise for the trouble.But then all that I have said to my well wishers is that Sakshi has not accepted to our format. But then now I am re-looking to the format you sent. Will pass my comments soon on it. -Umar Though SAN was falsely accused of being scared to debate by DIET in a Social Media Forum (Face Book), and SAN had every right to go to the Face Book and expose the lie of DIET, SAN considered the matter closed for the sake of having a friendly dialog. However, DIET soon started acting smart thinking that others are fools. DIET now said it would debate Bro. Jerry Thomas in the proposed format. Remember that the format was proposed only after DIET explicitly stated that they are not interested in a public debate. The format DOES NOT have a rebuttal which is NECESSARY for a public debate. Further, an entire day was suggested for question and answer session which is again not suited for a public debate. DIET seems to wanting debate Bro. Jerry Thomas without a rebuttal!!! Very smart!!! SAN responded by stating that while it is looking forward for the debate, if DIET is interested in a debate with Bro. Jerry Thomas, it has to be a public debate with Public Debate Format which SAN was reiterating along all the correspondence. DIET responded by saying it is interested in a Public Debate with two speakers and the speakers can be anyone from Christian side but still not speaking anything about the Public Debate format. Hello Mr. George, We are looking for a Public debate; with two speakers from our team; and two speakers representing your team. Inshaallaah we shall share the venue and other expenses on mutual agreement. Its upto your interest to either send Mr. Jerry Thomas or any one else. So the cat is out of the bag. DIET was initially stubbornly insisting on not wanting a public debate. But now, they are ready for a “Public Debate” which has no rebuttal!!! So, SAN replied: Hello Mr. Umar, Glad to see your email. On July 5, 2010, you wrote: "Public event is not what we are interested in. Inshaallaah, the videos will surely reach the public. The event in the hall would help us to discipline the gathering, and enable to maintain a decorum that is required for a religious dialogue." Further you wrote on July 6, 2010: "We are not closed minded, we are rather steady minded. You dont need to get upset for you to react in a flaring manner. Our format is designed for an academical level discussion, not for mudslinging sessions." Our Response on July 7, 2010 was to your emails dated on July 5, and July 6. If you are really interested in discussion, we offer the following format: 1) One and half our presentation from both sides on Is Jesus God and Is Muhammad a Prophet of True God?2) Rest of the entire day for question and answer session by a panel of scholars We offer to organize it. Are you ready? Therefore, the format suggested above is applicable only to the closed room dialog and not public debate. Moreover, it is very clear that we are organizing the closed room dialog and not in any partnership with you, you are our guests and you only need to take care of your own expense and your video recording. Further, as we wrote yesterday, a public debate can happen ONLY in a public debate format and not in a format which is suited for a closed room dialog. As SAN started insisting on public debate format, DIET slowly backed out of public debate proposal but pretending still as if SAN had done something wrong. DIET wrote: Yes Mr. George, we did change the format according to your interest. Nevermind, we shall be your guests. Duration of the dialogue must be decided, and the audience in the hall must have equal invitees inshaallaah. Let us know the dates and the names of the Speakers who are willing to participate. Thank you -UMAR Look at the pretension of having accepted the format. Which format? Was not the format proposed only after DIET explicitly stating that they are not interested in public debate? Did not SAN reiterate that public debate can take place only public debate format? So, which format? Remember SAN was forgiving DIET lies in the Face Book, SAN was forgiving DIET’s initial blatant denial of lies despite forwarding the mail in which the proposed format was given. Though DIET lied until all their options of further lying was closed, SAN did not expose them in public but overlooked it in the best interest of having a friendly dialog. SAN was now ready for a public debate in a public debate format if DIET wanted though DIET was closed minded and stubbornly insisted on a closed room dialog with false reasons in the initial correspondence. But now, again, DIET pretends that they have accepted the format when the public debate format was never discussed. So, SAN corrected them in a clear language but went ahead and proposed the names of panelist from SAN. Following are the final correspondence between SAN and DIET in which they claim to have been offended. Hello Mr. Umar, It is unfortunate that we need to correct you whenever you are unstable in your position. Do not try to dance around by saying you have accepted the format change. As we mentioned earlier, the proposed format was in response to your persistent rejection of public debate (where you claimed to have stable mind!!!). We have been extremely gracious to you though you have blatantly lied about us in the social network media and when caught red-handed you tried to cover it and now you are trying to play with words. Lying and deception will spoil any good that can come out of this dialog. So, please behave properly. Please find below the suggested dates and panelists from SAN. Date: Any Saturday in January 2010 subject to the availability of the venue as January is preferabl
e to you. Please note that we are yet to confirm the availability of our SAN resource person Bro. Paul A as he is currently in tour and has not been able to reach him by phone. The dates may either advance to November 2010 or postpone to February 2011 depending on his availability. We will inform you as soon as we receive the confirmation from him.Presenter: One of the below mentioned panelists will present the paper. Profile of the Panelists from Sakshi Apologetics Network Rev. Peter. A, B.A, M.Div, M.Th is an ordained minister by the Anglican Churches of India and teaches at various Theological Colleges. He wrote articles and books on defending the Christian faith. He travels around the world giving lectures on Apologetics. Bro. Paul A is a missionary and itinerary preacher who has spoken in different countries on the interreligious subjects. He was earlier a coordinator of one of the international Christian ministries and had been a radio speaker for a long time. Bro. G Bibu, L.L.M, pastors one of the Evangelical Churches in Hyderabad. Bro. G Bibu has written articles both in English and Telugu refuting allegations against the Christian faith including a refutation to late Ahmed Deedat’s book ‘Is Bible the Word of God?’ Bro. G Bibu had positively defended the veracity of the Christian faith before Justice Someshekar Commission and his LLM thesis is on the Constitutional validity of Anti Conversion Laws in India. Bro. David S is currently completing his B.Th. and B.Phil. He is an itinerary evangelist actively involved in various churches and ministries. He specializes in interfaith dialogue and apologetics. Thanks and regards, George John Now, DIET who lied, who changed their word every now and then and made pretensions suddenly was offended after receiving the name of the Panelists from SAN. Were they offended or were they afraid after seeing the profile of the panelists? The Texts sent by you.. "It is unfortunate that we need to correct you whenever you are unstable in your position. Do not try to dance around by saying you have accepted the format change. As we mentioned earlier, the proposed format was in response to your persistent rejection of public debate (where you claimed to havestable mind!!!). We have been extremely gracious to you though you haveblatantly lied about us in the social network media and when caughtred-handed you tried to cover it and now you are trying to play with words.Lying and deception will spoil any good that can come out of this dialog." Who is dancing ? Your language proves your poor upbringing. Let me tell you one thing straight; we have not lied. We have only said that you didn't accept to the format set by us. How can that be a lie? That was the fact. Your approach is in a bad taste. Hence we would drop the idea of holding any dialogue with you. For info on Islam, visit www.discoverislam.co.in. Learn some ethics in correspondence. You have failed miserably in it. -UMAR Despite lying by saying that SAN has not turned out yet when SAN already proposed an alternate format with panel discussion, and by hiding the fact it was DIET who did not respond, and despite blatantly lying that they never received the format until SAN send them their response back to them, DIET still thinks it did not lie. DIET shamelessly thinks that no one can see through their playing with words. However, SAN gave another opportunity to DIET. SAN responded: To the DIET,