After the police ban order on Jan 28 & 29 debates, SAN NEVER agreed for a public debate that violates ban order but only for a PRIVATE debate that COMPLIES with police order (read the correspondence between SAN & TNTJ after the police ban order). So, the deceptive accusation that SAN did not go for a debate which it never agreed, raises many questions:

TNTJ has been claiming that ban order of the Joint Commissioner of the Police does not prohibit web telecast and therefore our objection does not have any merits. Those who have heard PJ and TNTJ panelists on January 21 & 22 know that they are most of the times unable to rightly interpret their own scripture (forget about others) and therefore cannot be trusted with this legal matter. Therefore, we checked this with a high court lawyer in Chennai and he gave a totally different opinion.

PJ could NOT win the actual debate; so when police banned the second debate, PJ insisted having the web telecast and "debated" without SAN representatives.  The ONLY WAY PJ can win any debate with SAN is to debate without SAN representatives and that too at their office (and not even at the public venue) That is the reason he rejected the reasonable proposals of SAN. Watch the following debate and you will know the sad state of PJ. 

After the ban order on 28^th and 29^th 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.

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 at their office, 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. 

Check the evidences below and you will know that TNTJ is finding lame excuses to escape from a public or private debate.

Sakshi Apologetics Network and Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath have signed the agreement for a series of debates starting January 2012. Details of this series are given below for your prayers. Pray that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ will be exalted and His kingdom will be extended. Update on Venue for Jan debates. Registration starts.

As Dr. Zakir Naik refuses to debate with SAN representative Bro. Jerry Thomas, SAN organizes public rebuttals of Dr. Zakir Naik’s malicious allegations against the Holy Christian faith. On June 25, 2011 at Chennai, India, Bro. Jerry Thomas refuted Dr. Zakir Naik’s allegations against the crucifixion of Lord Jesus Christ. Transcript and videos are provided below.