Tag Archives: answeringmuslims

David Wood’s Hypocrisy

David recently posted the following,

“Devout Muslims bow down to the Kaaba five times per day, and when they take the pilgrimage to Mecca, they try to kiss the Black Stone. These practices are sheer paganism, but they are essential to Islam.”

What does he consider Jews making pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall, kissing and bowing to it?

What does he consider Christians bowing and kissing crosses?

Unlike in either Judaism or Islam where each faith shares the common concept of a qiblah/ derek, which is a direction of prayer and not worship of an object, this distinction loses its way among Christians due to their inability to understand either Jewish belief or Islamic belief; such a belief is Christianity part and parcel of Christian belief and thinking. If the act of bowing towards an object is paganism, then what does he consider bowing to crosses, or even images of Jesus, or better yet – to Jesus himself – a creation of God?

For more information on why Muslims bow towards and not to the Kabaah, see the following article.

and Allaah knows best.


David Wood Claims the Bible Contains ‘Repulsive Morality’

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

The self-delusional internet cross dresser, David Wood (see the below picture) has claimed that the Islamic concept of ‘blood money’, where the family of a victim of a crime can choose to accept a certain sum of payment as restitution for the crime is ‘repulsive morality‘.

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women’s Lingerie – Self Admitted Cross Dresser

He says and I quote:

“…should he continue to walk the streets, so long as the families of his victims accept the blood-money? Should the rich be allowed to kill as much as they like? This is the policy that you’re defending? And do you think that our country would be better if we adopted such a repulsive morality?”

Yet, YHWH, David’s Lord, God and Saviour, accepts the same form of legal precedence in the Bible! I wonder if the cross dresser ever thought of reading the book he claims to believe in? In the Bible, it is often dumbed down to refer to such a payment as a guilt offering. The Bible says in Leviticus 5:14-19:

The Lord said to Moses15 “When anyone is unfaithful to the Lord by sinning unintentionally in regard to any of the Lord’s holy things, they are to bring to the Lord as a penalty a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value in silver, according to the sanctuary shekel. It is a guilt offering16 They must make restitution for what they have failed to do in regard to the holy things, pay an additional penalty of a fifth of its value and give it all to the priest. The priest will make atonement for them with the ram as a guilt offering, and they will be forgiven.

17 If anyone sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though they do not know it, they are guilty and will be held responsible18 They are to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the wrong they have committed unintentionally, and they will be forgiven. 19 It is a guilt offering; they have been guilty of  wrongdoing against the Lord.

Now I truly wonder, is one of the Lord’s commands not to commit murder David? If that’s the case, if you kill someone unintentionally, then all you have to do is pay the blood money to YHWH and his Priests and you’re forgiven! Halellujah! Is this the kind of ‘repulsive morality’ you meant to mock Islam with, but which is significantly worse in your own scripture?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

A Rejoinder to Sam Shamoun: Christian Fans on Editing of Debate Videos

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Recently the foul mouthed missionary zealot, Sam Shamoun attempted to bully me through verbal abuse during an audio discussion. Unfortunately for Sam Shamoun, his tactics backfired and brought sincere Christians to begin communications with Calling Christians. In light of the discussion, Sam Shamoun then ordered his congregational minion/ audio recorder to post an edited version of our discussion. In Sam’s edited version, his comments are moved about, some of his insults are deleted and a portion of my rebuttal to his inane ranting was removed. Many Christians defended this and praised Sam for doing this on the Youtube video page of our discussion. Yet in typical Christian hypocrisy, on David Wood’s blog, that is Sam Shamoun’s debating partner, a strange thing occurred. As it turns out the Christian Samuel Green and Br. Imran of IREF had a debate. According to Samuel Green, IREF edited portions of the debate in light of the audience’s reaction to certain points but no speaking material was changed, just audience shots. These same Christians who were applauding and accepting Sam’s edit of our discussion, are now crying foul and claiming any edit is dishonest, abhorrent and distasteful.




Isn’t that hilarious? The nature of these Christians in Sam/ David’s congregation are completely hypocritical. Apparently, it’s okay for a Christian speaker to edit and manipulate a debate’s content, but to skip audience pan shots is tantamount to ‘promoting bias‘, ‘dishonest‘, ‘it makes a big difference‘, ‘influencing the meaning the author intended‘, ‘costs them the benefit of doubt‘, etc. It’s important for us Muslims to note the kind of missionaries we are dealing with. They are dirty, underhanded, deceitful and shameless. Most importantly, ‘people‘ like these will cry foul and claim victimization whenever they can to achieve emotional tendencies. Thankfully, us Muslims are not of the ilk that Sam Shamoun, et al are like. We are commanded to practise integrity and to remain on the path of righteousness and we most certainly do not need to be perverted in our speech or actions as they need to be.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Review: Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards

Note: This is a review done by Br. Paul Bilal Williams via his website, ‘Blogging Theology‘. Br. Paul is a well established orator and debater from the United Kingdom and has studied Christianity and Islam for several years.

Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards

A Review of the Debate by Paul Williams 

Ahmad’s opening statement threw down the gauntlet:

‘If we are to be fair and objective in our study of who the Messiah was, then we can’t work backwards, that is to start with the bias we already have and then look at the previous scriptures to justify our claims and beliefs. This is a form of revisionism.‘

He has in mind here a favourite methodology adopted by Christians: that of reading into Jewish texts their own later beliefs about Jesus. Scholars call this practice ‘eisegesis’.

Though Ahmad did not mention well known Christian apologist Dr Craig in his opening presentation, he could have called him as a witness for his defense as Dr. William Lane Craig would agree with him! Though Craig’s comments focus on Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection, they perfectly demonstrate how Christians read back into the Jewish Bible beliefs that no Jew ever held about their Messiah.

Craig writes:

‘Early Christians were convinced that Jesus’ resurrection, like his crucifixion, was, in the words of the old tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. 3-5, “in accordance with the Scriptures.” In Luke’s story of Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus, the risen Jesus chastises the two travelers: ” ‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24. 26-27).

The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2 ‘ “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” – has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul.

But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In the apostolic sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted in terms of Jesus’ resurrection: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” But if we look at the principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, we find the story of Jonah and the whale. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12.40).

Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.

The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead. To this we may add the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place.

Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’


What a stunning admission by Craig! At a stroke all those much vaunted “prophesies” in the OT about Jesus the Messiah turn out to be entirely absent from the Jewish Bible and can only be ‘discovered’ there if you artificially graft Christian beliefs onto the texts, in disregard of the original context and original meaning of the passages. But this is the standard ‘orthodox’ way Christians use the Bible to justify their beliefs.

Ahmad convincingly demonstrates that the Jewish Messiah was never considered to be divine or God at any time but was always expected to be only a man like other mortals.

Therefore the Christian belief in a Divine Messiah is unJewish and alien to the Torah. The final Prophet to mankind Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to correct these blasphemous excesses by Christians. Today 1.6 billion of his followers have learnt this lesson well.


A few comments on the opening statement by CL Edwards

Edwards boldly states:

After seriously studying the first century evidences concerning Christ, while being logically consistent, I had to change my position, and I now hold to the hypostatic union i.e the belief  Jesus had two natures. There is no historical proof anyone during this time held Jesus to be just a man.

He might need change his position once more as scholars have long realized that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. Read Peter’s sermons in Acts and ask yourself did he consider Jesus to be God (see Acts 2:22 & 2:36 for example)? Read Mark’s gospel: Jesus prays to God; is ignorant about various matters; denies he is ”good”;  feels abandoned by God on the cross. Does such a man seem like God in the flesh to you?

Much of Edwards presentation is simply a list of proof texts culled from the Bible. He does not show any critical awareness of how Christology developed in the New Testament, and just how radically different Mark’s gospel is from John’s gospel in its portrayal of Jesus.

As every undergraduate in Bible studies knows, it is clear that there has been a development in the way Jesus is presented in the pages of the New Testament. Look at the earliest gospel to be written, that of Mark.

This shows us a very human figure. Here are 7 examples:

1) Jesus is a man who prays to God (1:35)

2) Jesus is unable to work miracles in his own town (6:5) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 13:57-58.

3) Jesus confesses his ignorance about the date of the End of the world (13:32).

4) Jesus did not know the identity of a woman who touched him and had to ask his   disciples for help (Mark 5:30) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 9:20-21.

5) Jesus was so irritated by the absence of figs he cursed a fig tree even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:14) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 21:18-22.

6) Jesus even denies that he is perfectly good (Mark 10) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 19:17.

7) Mark portrays Jesus despairing of God’s help at the crucifixion as he cries: ‘My God my God why have you abandoned me?’ (15:34) – Luke and John both omit this.

So it seems clear that in the earliest gospel Jesus does not exhibit any of the attributes of God that Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly accept: unlike God, Jesus is not all knowing; he is not omnipotent; he is not perfectly good; he is not eternal; he is notimmortal; he is not unchanging. Therefore it seems obvious that he cannot be God.

If we read the last of the four gospels to be written, the gospel of John, we move into a different world. Here Jesus seems to move effortlessly through his ministry, he is clearly portrayed as a divine figure, indeed as “God” himself.

Instead of Jesus saying in Mark’s gospel “Why do you call me good – no-one is good but God alone”, John has Jesus say: ‘Before Abraham was I am’.

In the very first chapter of the gospel according to John, the Prophet John the Baptist proclaims Jesus to be ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ when he first meets him.  But in the earlier synoptic gospels, John the Baptist not only does not say this but half way through Jesus’ ministry sends messengers to Jesus asking “Are you the Messiah we’ve been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?” (Matthew 11:2)

So even this brief survey has shown the enormous evolution of the story of Jesus which occurred in less than two generations after Jesus was taken up by God.

Unlike in the earlier gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, in John Jesus speaks with a clear awareness of his divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked: whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended to be historical, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the claims about Jesus in John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It seems hardly likely.

Few scholars today would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is worth noting briefly the reasons why scholars think this:

One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. For example, the cleansing of the temple happens at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John but occurs at the end of Jesus’ ministry in the synoptic gospels. A clear contradiction.

Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking – much more discursive and theological in John, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptic gospels. Jesus’ way of speaking is the same, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of John the Baptist, and indeed very similar to the 1st Letter of John. The conclusion is unavoidable that the style is that of the author of the gospel of John rather than that of Jesus himself.  

Probably most important of all, in the synoptic gospels Jesus’ main message is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom of God hardly features and the discourses are largely about Jesus’ own self-consciousness andself proclamation. To put it simply, in the earlier gospels Jesus does not preach about himself but God and his kingdom. In John, Jesus speaks about himself and his Father. Had the striking ‘I am’ claims of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any gospel writer have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics gospels do?

In conclusionEdwards could benefit from an introductory course in New Testament studies to bring him up to speed with what his own scholars are teaching!

David Wood Cowers from a Muslim’s Questions

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’ve never really seen David Wood as a Christian scholar, at best he’s someone who has partially read Muhammad ibn Ishaq’s (ibn Yasar’s) works and maybe a few Answering Islam articles on Qur’anic ayat. His debate with Ali Ataie really demonstrated his inability to argue beyond this knowledge limitation which he possesses, while he constantly demonstrates a vast ineptitude in Biblical studies. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that when David is questioned on the Bible, he sticks his tail between his legs and avoids discussing his book’s wanton genocide and terrorism. Check out this 15 minute video clip as Br. Paul Bilal Williams, a former Christian, takes David to task:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

David Wood’s Hypocrisy: Young Hafiz Beaten

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’d like to confess that I’m an avid reader of David Wood’s blog, “Answering Muslims”, in fact I’ve even commented on his blog a few times. A few months ago I watched an entertaining debate between David and Br. Ali Ataie, and to simply put it: amazing. Most of us have seen videos of Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (may God be pleased with him), decimating his zealot Christian opponents, but this debate, dare I say it, surpassed that. David’s arguments were stopped, slapped out of the way and turned on him, I’ve never seen an Islamophobe crumble that quickly before, David endured more than an hour’s worth of embarrassment. Following this debate, I then viewed  lecture on, “How to Give Da’wah“, by the Brother which impressed me further. Lastly, I read his book, “In Defense of Islam“, that was the end, I knew I had read the works of someone who was intelligent, pious and by all means, brilliant.

It is with that said, that through Br. Ali’s influence, I began to read David Wood’s blog, in fact I would like to publicly admit that I am an avid viewer of his numerous Acts 17 videos, criticising Islam. Some of you might wonder, why would I read this man’s works, or watch his videos and to be quite honest, I do it because I am enjoying observing the efforts of a conceited man, so disillusioned by his own lack of intelligence, it’s akin to watching a drunk man walk up a hill. He gets up each time after tumbling down and still he falls over himself constantly. I like this analogy the most because it reminded me of this video. Today (03/08/2012), while viewing his blog, I came across the post entitled, “Qur’an Student Beaten Unconscious for Making Mistakes While Reciting“. Now, I don’t expect much objectivity from the despot, but when he made this comment, I had no choice but to author this post, “But again, who are we to judge other people’s cultures?“.

You must understand that he’s asked a very important question, who are Christians to judge other people’s culture? Let’s get something straight here, if we were to compare the Bible and the Qur’an, and then ask the question which book orders us to beat our children, what would be the result?

In Proverbs 13:24 we read: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Beating your child is proportional to loving your child and not beating your child is akin to hating your child. Smacking your baby to death is love? After all, the Bible does set a great standard, Christians do believe God killed his only son by crucifying him and abandoning him on the cross. These two premises alone are tantamount enough to dispel David’s claim and question his biased reasoning, but to rub some salt into his wounds, let’s give some more examples:

  • July 17th, 2012, Mother Accused of Torturing Child says Bible made her do it:

    There’s no excuse for locking your own child in a chicken coop and making her live for days on just bread and water. But neighbors in Butler, Georgia say mom Diana Franklin and husband Samuel Franklinallegedly has one hell of an excuse. Literally. Franklin supposedly said that the Bible made them abuse their adopted daughter.It sounds like it could lead us down into a religious argument. But considering all the good parents I know who happen to be Christian and aren’t abusing their kids, I’m going to skip that quagmire and go straight for confusion. Are there really people who think it’s OK to live “by the Bible,” even when the laws in America say it’s wrong? Have they actually read the same book?Franklin was allegedly referencing Proverbs 13:24, the portion of the King James Bible that reads, “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” As a result, cops say her 15-year-old daughter was forced at times to wear a dog’s shock collar, which Franklin would set off with a remote key fob. Other abuses described include living in a chicken coop for days on end and perform manual labor around their home in the oppressive heat.
  • October 27th, 2011, Parents Torture and Kill Adopted Child because of Biblical Teachings:

    The parents accused of killing their 13-year-old adopted daughter, are being investigated over whether they were inspired by a book that encourages children to be biblically punished.The Washington couple deny homicide and child abuse charges relating to the death of Ethiopian-born Hana Willaims, who apparently lived in a closet and was denied meals for days at a time.But investigators are looking into whether the Christian book, titled ‘To Train Up a Child’ may have been involved in the death of Hana and will be shown in a CNN documentary. Investigators say the abuse she endured included beatings, starvation, being forced to sleep outside and use an outdoor toilet, and that she had lost a significant amount of weight since her adoption.Prosecutors said the 10-year-old brother was similarly mistreated. The parents kept the family isolated from non-relatives, home-schooled the children and followed strict religious principles described in the Christian parenting book titled “To Train Up a Child,” investigators said. According to court documents, their 16-year-old son told investigators that Hana ‘was kept in a locked closet and the only light switch was on the outside of the closet.’ He stated that his mother would take her out every other day to walk and exercise. ‘They played the Bible on tape and Christian music for her while she was locked in the closet,’ he said.

  • Additional Source Link #1.
  • Additional Source Link #2.

It’s interesting to note that David won’t dare touch on these issues and you’d never see such coverage on his blog, but let a Muslim do something that his Bible commands and David’s ‘emotional plea to protect children from Muslims‘, instantly pops up in a post. I look forward to the day that David would be mature enough to publicly condemn such child abuse and torture entrusted in his Bible, then again, I’d also like to live in a world where uneducated people stay quiet, I guess some things are just bound to happen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God Knows Best.