Appeal: evidence
From Religion Debate: Islam vs Christianity.
- #11301:41:45upheld Sam Shamoun epainos: evidence (+2)
The council upheld the call: Sam Shamoun earned 2 points.
“Ibn Tayyim [Qayyim] al Jazia said, a group of scholars believe the Torah is uncorrupt. One of the evidences they gave is the hadith of Abu Dawud. They quoted it. They didn't question its authenticity, and even al Albani said it's Hassan…” quote corrected
Diogenes: Against Daniel's claim that the confirmation hadith is of disputed authenticity, he names the source, the classical scholar transmitting the view, and the grading, all of which can be checked.- Aristotle uphold: On the record: Sam's declared method from the opening has been to argue from named, checkable primary sources (Quran chapter/verse, Sahih hadith collections) rather than bare assertion, and this line continues that same practice rather than departing from it. Sam has consistently anchored his claims throughout the debate with checkable specifics — hadith collection, volume/number, named classical scholars, and Quran verse citations — and this line is squarely in that pattern: he names Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya as the transmitter of the scholarly view, the hadith of Abu Dawud as the evidence cited, and al-Albani's specific grading (Hassan), all facts a listener could go verify rather than a bare assertion.
- Socrates uphold: Read blind, found "evidence". In response to Daniel's vague claim that "there is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of that hadith," Sam cites a specific, checkable source: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's discussion of the hadith of Abu Dawud, naming the classical scholars who relied on it and noting al-Albani's specific grading of it as Hassan. This distinguishes his claim from bare assertion by pointing to a named authority and a verifiable grading, which is exactly the kind of checkable citation the rubric credits.
- Plato uphold: On the record: Sam has held since the opening of the scripture round that Muhammad's hadith confirming the Torah/Gospel is authentic and binds Muslims to accept those scriptures as uncorrupted; this line is a continuation of that same position, offered as a direct rebuttal to Daniel's specific claim moments earlier that "there is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of that hadith.". Sam distinguishes his claim (the hadith is sound and accepted) from checkable evidence for it: a named classical work (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's discussion), a specific modern grading (al-Albani: Hassan), and named scholars (al-Bukhari, al-Razi) who relied on it without disputing authenticity — all verifiable references, not a bare assertion, offered in direct answer to Daniel's authenticity objection.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.