{"id":200,"date":"2012-01-28T17:35:28","date_gmt":"2012-01-28T17:35:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/iemtindia.com\/?p=200"},"modified":"2012-01-28T17:35:54","modified_gmt":"2012-01-28T17:35:54","slug":"why-the-debate-on-quran-did-not-happen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iemtindia.com\/?p=200","title":{"rendered":"Why the Debate on Quran Did Not Happen?"},"content":{"rendered":"

After the ban order on 28th<\/sup> and 29th<\/sup> January debate on the Quran at Chennai between Sakshi Apologetics Network and Tamil Nadu Tawhid Jamaat by the Chennai police commissioner, SAN agreed for a private debate at TNTJ premises at their suggestion, as long as it complied with the police order. Since live telecast (web or other means) defies the police order both in letter and spirit, SAN requested TNTJ not to go ahead with web live telecast. <\/span><\/p>\n

When TNTJ insisted on live telecast, SAN proposed two solutions: (i) either have a private debate without live telecast or (ii) have a public debate with live telecast with police permission. Ignoring both these proposals, TNTJ conducted a program at their head office alleging that SAN ran away from the debates. When the Christians want to abide by the law of this land, why does the TNTJ Muslims want to violate the law of this land? Is this how they teach their community? SAN was ready to go to TNTJ office provided there is no webcast. If there was a webcast and there is a legal problem, it would be only a problem for SAN. Now, TNTJ SITTING<\/strong> at their office<\/strong>, is pretending that SAN had ran away from the debate. If TNTJ was so bold, they should have gone to the venue and fought for it.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Check the evidences below and you will know that TNTJ is finding lame excuses to escape from a public or private debate. <\/span><\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

Sakshi Apologetics Network (SAN) and TNTJ had conducted the debate on the topic “The Bible is the Word of God” on January 21 & 22. TNTJ suffered a humiliating defeat though it was a topic that the Christians had to defend (you can watch the entire video on YouTube soon). <\/span><\/p>\n

Strangely, before the debate on the Quran scheduled on January 28 & 29, on January 27, 2011, joint commissioner of police, south zone, Chennai police, issued a ban order on the debate. <\/span><\/p>\n

It is intriguing to note that the ban order says “Further, Hindus, Christians, and Muslim organizations (other than TNTJ<\/u><\/em>) object the live telecast of the programme in certain TV Channels.” <\/span><\/p>\n

We wonder why the ban order specifically mentions “other than TNTJ.” Is it because someone would suspect TNTJ’s hand in it? <\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, whoever has seen the humiliating defeat of TNTJ would suspect it. <\/span><\/p>\n

You can view the copy of the ban order here: http:\/\/www.sakshitimes.org\/images\/note.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

However:<\/span><\/p>\n

(a)  <\/span><\/span><\/span>When TNTJ said the debate can be conducted at their head office, probably thinking that SAN would not accept, SAN agreed it as long as it is a private debate. A private debate would not violate the ban order issued by the police commissioner. We clearly stated that the debate should comply with the police order and agreed for this private debate at their office. <\/span><\/p>\n

(b)  <\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span>Since webcast is a violation both in letter and in spirit of the ban order, SAN sent an email requesting TNTJ not to go ahead with live telecast. <\/span><\/p>\n

(c)  <\/span><\/span><\/span>However, TNTJ insisted on live telecast. Bur for all practical purposes, there is no difference between the public debate and a private debate with a live telecast. There is no essential difference between a public and private debate if there is a live telecast. If one of the reasons of ban was “object the live telecast of the programme in certain TV channels,” will a private debate with a live telecast not be vulnerable to the same risks? Obviously, the answer is yes.<\/span><\/p>\n

(d)  <\/span><\/span><\/span>When TNTJ insisted on live telecast, SAN proposed two options: (i) either have a private debate without live telecast or (ii) have a public debate with live telecast but with the appropriate police permission. <\/span><\/p>\n

(e) Why would SAN debate on the Holy Bible but not debate on Quran? Who should be afraid of this debate? SAN or TNTJ?<\/span><\/p>\n

(f) Why does TNTJ insist on live telecast when it violates the police order in letter and spirit? Is there an agenda behind this insistence? <\/span><\/p>\n

(g) SAN was ready to go to TNTJ office provided there is no webcast. If SAN goes to TNTJ office, and if there is a legal or police problem, it would be only a problem for SAN because SAN went to the TNTJ Office.  <\/span> <\/p>\n

Why is TNTJ running away from these proposals which comply with the law of this land? <\/span><\/p>\n

During the last week’s debate, when a SAN resource person quoted a hadith (with a difference reference) TNTJ was caught red handed lying that hadiths is not there when the hadiths was there in their own website. We are not surprised that people who can lie through their teeth about their own hadiths, would lie that and more.  <\/span>Why is TNTJ refusing to accept the implications of the police order and unwilling to accept our reasonable proposals? You decide.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

All Emails Follows:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

First Email on Jan 27, 2011<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: SAN (INDIA)<\/strong> <
\n