Sunday, 22 August 2010

Acts 17 Apologetics' Samuel Green is Silly

Samuel Green seems to be a reluctant member of David Wood's team. However this does not make him exempt from harsh rebuke for any nonsense he spouts. Green was over-burdening us with his unscholarly mannerisms (including his audacious attempt to re-write history) thus we had to intercept and respond with a harsh series of rebukes

Samuel Green:“Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?

Initially when I gave Samuel Green’s article a cursory glance I felt Samuel Green produced one of the most pointless articles I have witnessed in my time investigating Christian outreaches to Muslims. However upon reviewing it further in detail I must revise my opinion. Samuel Green is attempting to (subtly) reinforce or even reintroduce shoddy conspiracy theories in a misguided attempt to re-write history!

Samuel Green, though gentle enough, is very much in league with the fundamentalist brigade of Christian apologists/haters on the internet such as Sam Shamoun and David Wood, thus our friend Sam Green warrants a forthright approach as subtlety is rarely an effective manner of reasoning with the Islamophobe-types who reside in Green’s camp.

I personally skipped over this until the YouTube video-maker, propagator and apologist of Islam, 1MoreMuslim, got involved in discussing Green’s article within the comment section. What happened next? 1MoreMuslim sends me an email informing me of his comments being unapproved (blocked?). I have since asked 1MoreMuslim to double check whether he has been blocked or if it is a case of Acts 17 Apologetics delaying in approving comments

IF he has been censored:

So Samuel Green and company allow some of 1MoreMuslim’s comments to go through but as soon as the dialogue threatens to become in depth and begins to show Green to be extremely erroneous Samuel Green’s friends decide to block 1MoreMuslim. This is extremely suspicious as 1MoreMuslim was contributing to the dialogue in a manner which was erudite and decent. In short there was no reason for him to be censored. It gets even more baffling as Samuel Green (now somewhat paradoxically) asked for feedback vis-à-vis his article:

“What do you think?”

Quite how Samuel Green expects to get feedback whilst his dishonest friend (most likely David Wood) blocks reactive comments behind Green’s back is beyond me. Perhaps Green would like to choose a better group of friends. Unfortunately this seems unlikely as he has been in union with the bigot Sam Shamoun for a good number of years so asking him to extradite himself from his current social circle is really asking.

Rebuking Samuel Green

In any case let’s focus on Green’s material and pick at the holes within. To do so I will adopt a two-pronged approach:

1. Briefly run through Samuel Green’s work myself whilst adding critique to it
2. Bring in 1MoreMuslim's dismissal of Green’s claims

In the way of a disclaimer I would like to state none of my analysis is designed to make Samuel look silly and I am pretty certain 1MoreMuslim’s comments were not designed for the purpose of ridicule. At this juncture I would also like to add the unscholarly nature of Green’s work warrants sharp rebuke

Analysis of Sam Green’s Conspiracy Theories and Conjecture

Green entitle his article; “Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?

Samuel Green seems to have little regard for scholarship as scholarship tells us Muhammad did not fight prior to the Hijrah. The Muslims lacked any real capacity to do so.

Green, however, knows this but is trying to sow seeds for his conspiracy theories and conjecture.
Green goes on:

“In the histories I have read about Muhammad, I have been told that before the hijrah he endured suffering and shame from the Meccans and never fought or was violent. I may have misunderstood the Muslim claim but this is what I understand, that Muhammad did not fight before the hijrah.”

Green need not bother playing innocent here. Sam Green knows full well this is the Muslim claim as well as the Non-Muslim claim. All scholarship agrees on this fact. Thus it would appear Green is wasting his time. Nevertheless Samuel Green persists and even pulls out his ace from the pack:

However, I am reading my way through the qur'an and it seems this understanding of Muhammad's life does not work easily.

So Green is now arguing against expertise. Who exactly is Samuel Green? Green would do well to know his place. To Green’s credit he does bring an argument to cast doubt on the said scholarship. It must be noted his argument is laced in ignorance and is highly spurious:

In Sura 16 (the bee)Islamic scholars say that verse 110 comes for the Medinan period and has been inserted into this Meccan sura.

Then lo! thy Lord - for those who became fugitives after they had been persecuted, and then fought and were steadfast - lo! thy Lord afterward is (for them) indeed Forgiving, Merciful. 16:110

Sam Green fails to mention the scholars he speaks about but goes on to impute thought upon them (again without mentioning the scholars involved):

“The reason for saying this verse is inserted is that it refers to fighting in a Meccan period sura”

Samuel Green gets Interesting

OK, Green has laid out his cards and wants to concentrate on two points from his agenda. Here is Green trying to get us to follow his unorthodox thought pattern - a thought pattern which is merely employed in an attempt to deconstruct Islam and has nothing to do with intellectual integrity or scholarship:

“If the Qur'an is the best source for understanding Muhammad's life (and I think it is), then doesn't it appear that he was fighting before the hijrah? Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”

Is Green serious here? How can the Quran be the best source of understanding the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) when we have Ahadith literature which is more focussed on the personal activities of the Prophet Muhammad?

The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran is not about Prophet Muhammad and is a Revelation for Mankind as Guidance. The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad.

Therefore this Book is not going to be more relevant in studying the life of Muhammad than the Ahadith literature which would factor in Muhammad’s sayings and daily activities amongst other things as Ahadith literature is essentially about Muhammad. A testimony to this fact would be the biographers’ predominant use of material from Ahadith literature in order to compile their respective biographies of Prophet Muhammad (p). Common sense tells you Green is mistaken. Sadly, common sense eludes critics as their desperate desire to have a pop at Islam blinds them

Green is either grossly negligent in this remark or is being intellectually dishonest in order to build a case according to his personal agenda. Please have a rethink, Sam, You do yourself no favours at all in operating at such a level.

Now let us focus on Green’s strange idea (dare I say “crack pot idea”, sorry Sam):

“Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”

From my experience it never takes too much reading before you come across a completely over-board suggestion/assertion from somebody who is linked with Sam Shamoun. Green does not buck the trend.

Sam Green makes this suggestion based on what? Nothing at all. The biographers do not document anything of such a nature and maintain the Hijrah was due to the Quraish’s persecution of the Muslims. As per usual Green makes his claim without bringing any evidence

Al Mubarekpuri, nor any other biographer, cites anything which supports Sam Green’s strange claim. Quite how Sam Green thinks such a small group of persecuted Muslims in Makkah can be the aggressors is beyond me this disbelief in the reasoning of Green is compounded by the fact no authority supports his conspiracy theory.

Effectively Samuel Green is doing away with all the experts in the field as well as all the source literature in favour of his conspiracy theory. You can imagine Green being amongst those Christians who believe the forgeries within the Bible are inspired too.

Here is Sam Green’s last conspiracy theory:

“Is it right for Muslim scholars to use the theory of "inserted verses" to explain why their reconstruction of Muhammad's life does not match up with what the Qur'an says?”

Essentially Green accuses Muslim scholars of dishonesty.

This is rich coming from Samuel Green, the man who is a partner of Sam “Muslims are black stone lickers” Shamoun. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones, Sam.

The “theory” of inserted verses

Samuel Green is an enigma. He is making a disparaging claim without any knowledge whatsoever. Green admits to his ignorance in the comment section:

“What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?”

Green fails to realise we DO have evidence of verses being arranged by the Prophet himself! I guess ignorance is bliss for Sam.

Firstly Al Azami, upon speaking of the Surahs and Verses, states:

It is commonly acknowledged that the arrangement of ayat (verses) and suras (chapters) in the Quran is unique. The layout does not follow the chronological order of revelation, nor does it follow subject matter.

Here is a narration (Hadith) which shows us verse insertion was carried out by the Prophet himself as Al Azami writes:

“Uthman states that whether the revelation consisted of lengthy, successive verses, or a single revelation in isolation the Prophet would summon one of his scribes and say, “Place this verse [of these verses] in the sura where such and such is mentioned”” [ Tirmidi Sunnan no 3086] [1]

Al Azami goes on to give further evidence of verse insertion being supervised by the Prophet (p) [1]. For our purposes of educating Green so he desists in spreading silly conspiracy theories this is sufficient.

I would also remind Green the Surahs were recited in daily prayers (and special Ramadan prayers) which meant the sequence of verses would have been agreed upon at the time of Prophet Muhammad. I mention this in order to pre-emptively quell any further unorthodox theories our friend Sam may have in mind.


[1] The History of The Quranic Text, M.M Al Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003 [pg 70-72]

1MoreMuslim Dismisses Samuel Green and his unorthodox ideas

1MoreMuslim makes a great refuting comment based on common sense and appeals to Sam's faculty of reason:

This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?

The verse 126 begins with "IF" , God instruct how to retaliate in the future, IN CASE that the Muslims will have to, But God instructed them to be patient. So no fighting in there!

At this Sam Shamoun pops in to help Samuel Green and actually makes a half-decent point and manages to keep his calm; I guess all the critique of his attitude is paying dividends and the man is attempting to reform himself :

This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?

Your argument doesn't follow since this verse can be referring to the Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia and sought asylum from the Negus. This event took place while Muhammad and the majority of Muslims still remained in Mecca.

So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?

However, Sam is soon shot down quite spectacularly by 1MoreMuslim:

To Sam;
"So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?"
Because those people are referred to as "Muhajirun"
And after all , what are you trying to prove? That Muhammad sent his followers to Abyssinia, and stayed in Makkah fighting, while living among the Mushrikeen? Was it a kind of street fight during the day, and when the night falls everybody go home? If you want to revise and rewrite history, try something believable.
Read the first and second comment to this article, you people can't understand an English Sentence, let alone the Hebrew and the Arabic.

Enter Samuel Green, I guess he must have felt a little silly at this point:

My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura, yet the sura is Meccan. What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?

My observation is simply this, that when Muslim scholars say different verses come from different periods within the one sura, it seems that they are trying to make the Qur'an fit into their reconstructed view of Muhammad's life. I cannot see any evidence for the idea that 110 verses in sura 16 are meccan and just one verse is medinan. I think the Qur'an is a better source for Muhammad's life and that the scholars are wrong.

1moremuslim, your argument is based on the scholars view of Muhammad's life. I am suggesting that this does not match up with the Qur'an at every point.

Note: Green’s quest for evidence of Muhammad (p) arranging verses has been satisfied in the article (see above), Green, embarrassingly, is still clinging onto his conspiracy theory which flies in the face of all expertise and scholarship. Samuel Green’s raison d’être, on this, evidence is to intimate unsupported and unorthodox claims and never back them up regardless of how silly he looks. 1MoreMuslim pours further admonition on our friend Green:

To Samuel Green:

Your whole argument is made of thin air, Be it Medinan or Meccan, Q 16:110 doesn't mention fighting AT ALL. The Arabic for fight is " Katalou" , but here we find the word "Jahadou" which means struggle and steadfast. You are committing a circular reasoning with ignorance: You are using a translation influenced by the idea that the verse is Medianan, and used that translation to prove that the verse is a Meccan.
Samuel, if you reject the view of the scholars and commentators, then you should translate the word "Jahadou" as Struggled, not fought.
David Wood, above, recommended M H Shakir translation, take his advice. It's not bad. You should remove this article and apologize for deceiving your readers.

1MoreMuslim also points out Samuel Green’s unwitting refutation of his fellow Christian critics! Welcome to the bizarre double-minded world of this particular band of internet fundamentalist-Christian apologists:

Samuel Green:
"My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura"

Thank you for that testimony Samuel, there have been critics which say that the Quran is incoherent

You can find 1MoreMuslim here:


There you have it folks. We have a Christian apologist in the form of Samuel Green ignoring all scholarship and authority and attempting to re-write history. I feel for Christians who support individuals with this type of disconnection from intellectual honesty and scholarship. For what it is worth I rebuke Samuel Green for this shoddy display of his and I join 1MoreMuslim in calling for Green to apologise.

All in all, I guess our friend, Green, is rather red (faced) now. Or should we coin a word from the limited vocabulary of his partner (Shamoun) and dismiss him as “pathetic”.

I want to further rebuke people like Samuel Green and ask them to focus on real issues related to salvation rather than wasting time on intellectually-dishonest ideas designed to have a poke at Muslims. Think!

Think: Jesus has a God and has brothers and sisters as well as a God.

I ask Green to focus on the One who Jesus was praying to (appendix 1). This is obviously God and a sincere Christian would be focussing on these issues which pertain to salvation and not idling time away in conjuring shoddy and unsupported theories

I invite Samuel Green and ALL Christians to worship the God whom Jesus worshipped. Obviously if Jesus has a God then he cannot possibly be God. Therefore common sense dictates we should do away with the claim of Jesus being God.

Christians, please think about it. This is extremely important. God does not want you to be worshipping a man. Look into the first commandment (Exodus 20)my friends and focus on your salvation rather than wasting time.

You shall have no other gods before Me (God)

I ask you to become Muslims and join us as the brothers of Jesus (appendix 2). Search for the Truth and the Truth shall free you. Learn more about the Truth here:


Appendix 1

Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:

So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV

Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)

Appendix 2

Jesus has brothers and sisters (Mk3:35). Of course God does not have brothers or sister. These brothers and sisters of Jesus can ONLY be Muslims so please become a brother/sister of Jesus by becoming a Muslim:

Appendix 3

If you are Assyrian or Arab Christian and want some encouragement to convert to Islam (this is suitable for all Christians):


  1. I'm surprised you didn't pick on Sams spelling, you seem to have tried everything else.

    We don't need to worry about how people like you assess Christians, we will be taking "Islam" to court soon, or at least any place which sells the 'hate speech' documents of Quran and Hadith.
    I suggest you folks familiarize yourselves with our wonderful Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 specially sections 8 and 25

    The Quran and Hadith are 'hate speech' and racist. This can easily be proven in court, as the rules of evidence and case law show.

    Now let us see how it is practiced on a female child & who began this evil practice. According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was 6 years old until she reached 9 years of age (Fatwa No. 31409). The hadith, which was quoted earlier, mentioned the prophet Muhammad started performing literal sex with Aisha ONLY when she reached the age of 9 (Sahih al-Bukhari, book 62, hadith No. 89).

    Muslim scholars collectively agree, a child becomes an adult, available for sexual intercourse as soon as she reaches the age of nine. Likewise, the Shari’a allows any of the faithful to marry a six-year-old child.
    According to the fatwa, the prophet Muhammad could not have sex with his fiancée, Aisha when she was six due to her small size & age. However, the fatwa said that at age six, he would put his penis between her thighs and massage it gently because he did not want to harm her.

    Imagine a man of 51 removing the clothes of a 6-year-old girl and slipping his erect penis between her thighs, rubbing her until he ejaculated and his semen ran down her thighs. To this day, this is considered a benevolent act on the part of the adult male “not wanting to harm her.” What harm could be inflicted upon a young girl mentally and emotionally if not a grown man showing her his penis and stripping her of her clothes and rubbing his male organ between her legs?

    Of course the twisted mind that does such an evil to a female child, would not hesitate to ejaculate on her body. And if this sexually perverted evil frame of mind committed such an act upon a child, the pedophile would not stop at ejaculating on her. His evil desire would go further and rape the child before she was a mature adult. This is exactly what Muhammad did to Aisha when she was yet a child of 9.