Question for Muslims: Original Sin

Posted by David Wood - August 30, 2008 on 12:28 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I'm taking part in some presentations next month, and I've been asked to list Islam's main objections to various topics. I'll toss this out to my Muslim friends. What are your main objections to the doctrine of Original (or Inherited) Sin?

 


David Wood vs. Ali Ataie: “Who Was Muhammad?”

Posted by David Wood - August 27, 2008 on 11:54 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Here's a debate I did a long time ago at the University of California. The topic was "Who Was Muhammad? The Christian and Muslim Perspectives." If you'd like to have some fun while you're watching the debate, pull out a piece of paper and try writing down Ali's arguments for the Prophethood of Muhammad. You'll need about one line.

DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


ALI'S OPENING STATEMENT


REBUTTALS


CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS


You can read some reviews of the debate here and here.

 


“Dispatches: Undercover Mosque” Returns!

Posted by David Wood - August 24, 2008 on 9:15 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments For all of my Muslim friends who noted that the producers of "Dispatches: Undercover Mosque" had been accused of editing the violent and intolerant messages being preached in supposedly moderate UK mosques, the people who accused the producers have been found guilty of libel. The producers were awarded 100,000 pounds for the false allegations against them. As if this weren't enough, the show will return with more proof that violence is being proclaimed in the UK's moderate mosques. What is to be done to converts, according to moderate Muslim women at these moderate mosques? "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam." Read More.

Welcome to the religion of peace.

 


James White Responds to Abdullah (Six Parts)

Posted by David Wood - August 23, 2008 on 2:10 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Here James responds to "Abdullah of the UK." Since Abdullah makes a number of errors that are very common among Muslim apologists, these videos are an excellent introduction to Muslim claims about the text of the New Testament.

PART ONE:


PART TWO:


PART THREE:


PART FOUR:


PART FIVE:


PART SIX:

 


Islam: What the West Needs to Know

Posted by David Wood - August 20, 2008 on 10:46 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments

 


Sheikh Jalal Abualrub vs. David Wood: “Is Muhammad a Prophet?”

Posted by David Wood - August 19, 2008 on 3:42 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Here's the debate I did in April with Sheikh Jalal Abualrub, a Salafi scholar and translator. I think that Jalal did an excellent job (considering the fact that there's just not much that can be said in defense of Islam), which is why I'm disappointed that Jalal doesn't want to debate anymore.

JALAL'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS


CONCLUSIONS/Q&A

 


From Mormonism, to Islam, to Christianity: The Story of a Double Convert

Posted by David Wood - August 19, 2008 on 1:03 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Here's a video of a man who spoke after my debate this past Sunday. It's too bad that escaping false teachings isn't an Olympic event. This guy would get the gold! (Pay close attention to his work in Indonesia, and the difficulty of evangelizing in Muslim countries.)

 


Bassam Zawadi on a Biblical “Absurdity”

Posted by David Wood - August 16, 2008 on 12:44 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments In a recent debate with Bassam Zawadi, I said that he too readily accepts "problems" in the Bible, while he quickly dismisses errors in Muhammad's teachings. Bassam insisted that he is consistent in his methodology. I thought it would be good to give my readers an example of what I mean.

The Qur'an and the Hadith are filled with absurd teachings about Satan sleeping in our noses and prophets communicating with insects (see here, here, here, here, and here for some examples). Bassam finds Muhammad's teachings entirely plausible. But in an effort to draw attention away from Muslim sources, he has written an article on "Biblical Absurdities." Let's look at one of these "absurdities," to see whether I was right about him being too quick to condemn the Bible.

Judges 9:8-15

8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.'

9 "But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?'

10 "Next, the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and be our king.'

11 "But the fig tree replied, 'Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?'

12 "Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and be our king.'

13 "But the vine answered, 'Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?'

14 "Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.'

15 "The thornbush said to the trees, 'If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!'

Trees and bushes can speak to each other?

Well, that certainly seems absurd. Trees and vines talking? This reminds us of Islamic teachings about trees and animals converting to Islam! But let's look at the passage in context, so we can see what Bassam has left out.

And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother's relatives, and spoke to them and to the whole clan of the household of his mother's father, saying, "Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, 'Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?' Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh."

And his mother's relatives spoke all these words on his behalf in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem; and they were inclined to follow Abimelech, for they said, "He is our relative."

They gave him seventy pieces of silver from the house of Baal-berith with which Abimelech hired worthless and reckless fellows, and they followed him.

Then he went to his father's house at Ophrah and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, on one stone. But Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left, for he hid himself.

All the men of Shechem and all Beth-millo assembled together, and they went and made Abimelech king, by the oak of the pillar which was in Shechem.

Now when they told Jotham, he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted his voice and called out. Thus he said to them, "Listen to me, O men of Shechem, that God may listen to you. Once the trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us!' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come, reign over us!' But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the vine, 'You come, reign over us!' But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my new wine, which cheers God and men, and go to wave over the trees?' Finally all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come, reign over us!' The bramble said to the trees, 'If in truth you are anointing me as king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.'

"Now therefore, if you have dealt in truth and integrity in making Abimelech king, and if you have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have dealt with him as he deserved--for my father fought for you and risked his life and delivered you from the hand of Midian; but you have risen against my father's house today and have killed his sons, seventy men, on one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maidservant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your relative--if then you have dealt in truth and integrity with Jerubbaal and his house this day, rejoice in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you. But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech and consume the men of Shechem and Beth-millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem and from Beth-millo, and consume Abimelech."

Then Jotham escaped and fled, and went to Beer and remained there because of Abimelech his brother.

Now, in context, is the Bible saying that trees and vines talk to one another (as Bassam has represented it)? Not at all! When we add the context (which Bassam has omitted), we find that this is a parable being told by a man named Jotham. He tells a story to illustrate a point he is making. Hardly an absurdity!

The fact that Muslims will point to this as a problem in the Bible shows how desperate they are to attack the Bible. While I have come to expect this sort of thing from people like Nadir Ahmed, I really think that Bassam is better than this, and that he will remove this obvious misrepresentation from his website so that he doesn't continue to mislead his readers.

 


Masab Yousef: Hamas Leader’s Son Gives His Life to Jesus

Posted by David Wood - August 14, 2008 on 5:48 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Praise the Lord for giving this man the courage to bow down to the Lord Jesus Christ.

FOX NEWS REPORT:


CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY REPORT:


ARTICLE:
"The Prodigal Son"

 


Uthman: Corrupter of Muhammad’s Message and the True Founder of Islam

Posted by David Wood - August 12, 2008 on 9:00 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments It's quite common for Muslim apologists to be inconsistent in their methodology. For instance, a Muslim will point to the Bible and say, "Ahhhh! You have textual variants! This is conclusive proof that your book has been corrupted!" Then, when Christians show that there are textual variants in the Qur'an, suddenly textual variants aren't important. Muslims will point to the Gospels and say, "Ha! Mark was written more than two decades after the life of Jesus! How can you trust such a late book?" Then these same Muslims will quote Sahih al-Bukhari as a trustworthy source on the life of Muhammad--despite the fact that it was written more than two centuries after Muhammad's life.

Muslims are especially inconsistent in their conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories are meant to rule out evidence, so that the facts no longer count. For example, let's say that I'm a paranoid schizophrenic. "Everyone is conspiring against me," I cry. How could anyone ever prove me wrong? "David," you say, "I promise you that we're not conspiring against you. No one's plotting behind your back." This is meant to be evidence against my position, and yet I reply, "Ha! That's exactly what I would expect you to say! If you're plotting against me, of course you're going to deny it! Now I know that everyone is conspiring against me!"

Muslims apply conspiracy theories in numerous ways, e.g. "There was a conspiracy at the Council of Nicaea! They wrote the Gospels themselves!" But I want to focus on one particular conspiracy theory--the theory that Paul invented Christianity. In his debate with James White, Nadir Ahmed used this theory to rule out all the relevant evidence. Nadir claimed, without offering anything even remotely resembling a careful argument, that Paul had corrupted Jesus' message. Since the writings of the New Testament come after Paul, none of them can be used as evidence concerning Jesus' teachings. Moreover, since even the early church fathers were writing after Paul, their views don't count either.

Notice the difference between this conspiracy theory and a serious argument against Christianity. A serious argument would be based on the first century evidence. Nadir's conspiracy theory is meant to rule out everything that would normally count as evidence (and James pointed this out).

But does Nadir apply this theory consistently? That is, would Islam be able to deal with a similar attack? Let's find out.

I claim that Muhammad was a Christian. He believed in Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. The vast majority of "Christians" in Arabia before the time of Muhammad were heretics. Hence, Muhammad came to restore true belief in Jesus Christ. He spent his entire life preaching the Gospel and turning people to faith in Jesus Christ. Many pagans were converted to Christianity under the powerful preaching of Muhammad and his disciples Abu Bakr and Umar. Muhammad gave his followers the Qur'an, which, in its original form, was simply an Arabic translation of the New Testament.

But there was an evil pagan named Uthman, who hated Christianity, didn't know Muhammad, and worshiped Allah, one of the many gods of Arabia. In order to destroy the work of Muhammad, Uthman pretended to be a faithful Christian. His deception was so convincing that he eventually rose to a position of leadership in the Christian community. Once he was in charge, Uthman asked all of the Christians in Arabia for their copies of the Qur'an (i.e. their copies of the Arabic New Testament). Uthman then rewrote the entire Qur'an, turning it into a book which denies the core teachings of Christianity. He took all copies of the true Qur'an and burned them, and he used his power to silence his enemies.

Thus, the Islam of today is not the religion that Muhammad preached. Muhammad preached submission to Jesus Christ. Uthman corrupted this message by claiming that Allah is the only true God and that Jesus was a mere prophet of Allah. He did this in order to degrade Jesus and to keep people from believing in Christianity, the religion of Muhammad.

Now for the fun part. How can Muslims refute my theory? They can't appeal to the Qur'an, since all copies of the Qur'an were written after Uthman corrupted them. But Muslims can't appeal to the Hadith, Sira literature, or commentaries either, since all of these were written after the time of Uthman. Muslims can't even say that Uthman was one of the companions, since I'm claiming that Uthman simply rewrote history to help his position. Isnad criticism is irrelevant, since later Isnad critics were under the influence of Uthman's false teachings.

I conclude that Muhammad preached Christianity and that Uthman was the true founder of what is now called "Islam."

My question to my Muslim friends is this: Do you really want to take the route of conspiracy theories?

 


Nadir Ahmed vs. James White: “Can We Trust What the New Testament Tells Us about Jesus and the Gospel?”

Posted by David Wood - August 10, 2008 on 12:55 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments If you thought that Nadir Ahmed's career ended after his humiliating defeat at the hands of Sam Shamoun, you're wrong. Nadir, in an effort to redeem himself, travelled to Phoenix, entered James White's church, and challenged him to a debate. While James didn't want to debate someone with absolutely no credentials, no standing in the Muslim community, and no respect from either Christians or Muslims, Nadir had crossed the line. Hence, one of Christianity's most experienced apologists agreed to debate one of Islam's most embarrassing characters. However, even those who know about Nadir couldn't have predicted how low he would sink in this debate. By the time the Q&A period rolled around, Nadir's fellow Muslims couldn't contain their embarrassment.



Interestingly, Nadir has defended his atrocious behavior here. It seems that sticking to a topic, respecting one's audience, not making a fool of oneself, etc., are Western values, which, according to Nadir, have no place in Islam.

(Note: For those who want to know what Nadir is talking about when he says that he heard from someone that Nabeel had accused him of practicing Muta, I happen to know where this misunderstanding came from. A couple of years ago, Nadir somehow managed to convince Nabeel's parents that he is a respected scholar of Islam. Nabeel, however, knew the truth: that Nadir knows virtually nothing about Islam and that some of his fellow Muslims think he is insane. In order to show his mother that Nadir is not respected, Nabeel pointed to an article on the Answering Christianity website which said that Nadir claims that sex with animals is acceptable in Islam. The only point was to show that people in the Muslim community have no respect for Nadir. Somehow, over the following months, Nabeel's mother confused the issue of sex with animals with the problem of Muta--Muhammad's [later retracted] claim that prostitution is acceptable, provided the men marry the women for the duration of their sexual activities. Nabeel's mom conveyed this misunderstanding to Nadir, who, instead of talking to Nabeel about the issue, chose instead to bring it up in the middle of his first debate with a Christian scholar--a debate on the reliability of the New Testament. Such behavior is, of course, utterly unacceptable, and Muslims are almost universally turning their backs on Nadir. Others are wondering why Nadir gets so emotional when the Muta issue is raised. After all, Nadir seems pleased when people accuse him of being demon possessed or mentally unstable. He wears such attacks as a badge of honor. Yet when someone is misunderstood as accusing him of practicing Muta, Nadir goes berserk. As Hamlet's mother would say, "The [man] doth protest too much, methinks." Anyway, if you thought that two humiliating defeats would finally convince Nadir that he needs to stop embarrassing himself and his religion, you're wrong again. Nadir is once again trying to make a comeback. He'll be doing two debates with Pastor Daniel Scot in September. Oh boy . . .)

 


Debate: Morality in Christianity and Islam

Posted by David Wood - August 9, 2008 on 10:58 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments WHO: David Wood vs. Farhan Qureshi
WHAT: Debate on Morality
WHEN: Sunday, August 17th, 1:00-3:00 P.M.
WHERE: Sheraton Reston Hotel (11810 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA)
WHY: Why Not?

 


David Wood vs. Bassam Zawadi: “Does the Evidence Show that Christianity Is True?”

Posted by David Wood - August 9, 2008 on 11:24 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Here's the other debate Bassam and I did at Madinah Educational Center. I've watched some of it. I don't think he offered any significant response to my case for Christianity. I also think that some of his responses simply created additional problems for his position (e.g. Allah deceived people into believing that Jesus had died). But, at the same time, I didn't have a chance to respond to some of his claims. (That's the main difficulty when trying to cover a broad topic in a short period of time--some things go unanswered. I'll have to respond to these issues here on my blog, and Bassam can comment.) This debate, however, is a good introduction to the major issues.

DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT

BASSAM'S OPENING STATEMENT

REBUTTALS


SHORT REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS


Our next debate was "Does the Evidence Show that Islam Is True?" Click here to watch the debate.

 


Muhammad vs. “Locks of Love”: Are People who Donate Hair Cursed?

Posted by David Wood - August 8, 2008 on 3:01 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments My wife recently had most of her (rather long) hair cut off. The hair was donated to "Locks of Love," an organization that makes wigs for children who have lost their hair due to medical problems or treatments (e.g. chemotherapy). These children are often traumatized to learn that they may be dying. Locks of Love helps them in a small way by providing wigs so that people won't stare at the children.

According to Muhammad, my wife is now under Allah's curse, and so is the little girl who gets my wife's hair (and all who give or receive hair).

Sahih al-Bukhari 5941: Narrated Asma: A woman asked the Prophet saying, "O Allah's Messenger! My daughter got measles and her hair fell out. Now that I got her married, may I let her use false hair?" He said (to her), "Allah has cursed the lady who lengthens hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened artificially."

Sahih al-Bukhari 5940: Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet has cursed the lady who lengthens her hair artificially and the one who gets her hair lengthened.

 


David Wood on “Iron Sharpens Iron”

Posted by David Wood - August 7, 2008 on 6:27 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Chris Arnzen invited Bassam and me back on "Iron Sharpens Iron" to discuss our debates. Bassam couldn't make it this time (he needs to spend some time with his family), but it was a good show anyway. We talked mostly about the problems with the Muslim view of Jesus (which, I'll say, all Christians should be examining).

DOWNLOAD THE MP3

 


Bassam Zawadi vs. David Wood: “Does the Evidence Show that Islam Is True?”

Posted by David Wood - August 6, 2008 on 2:49 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments This is one of two debates my friend Bassam and I did at Madinah Educational Center this past weekend (I'll post the other in the next couple of days). Jalal was an excellent host, and the Muslims were all very kind. It's certainly fun debating in a building full of Salafis!

OPENING STATEMENTS:


REBUTTALS/CONCLUSIONS:
(Coming Later Today)

 


Tyson Chicken: Labor Day Is Out, Muslim Holiday Is In

Posted by David Wood - August 4, 2008 on 9:08 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Allahu Akbar!

 


Tyson Chicken: Labor Day Is Out, Muslim Holiday Is In

Posted by David Wood - August 4, 2008 on 9:08 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Allahu Akbar!

 


Yesterday’s Debates with Bassam

Posted by David Wood - August 3, 2008 on 9:38 am | In Answering Muslims | No Comments I spent yesterday at Jalal Abualrub's Madinah Educational Center, a Salafi Islamic center in Connecticut. Bassam Zawadi and I debated the topics "Does the Evidence Show that Christianity is True?" and "Does the Evidence Show that Islam is True?" The Muslims at the center were all very kind, and Jalal took Bassam and me out to lunch.

The debates should be posted shortly. Here are my initial impressions. As for the first debate, I think I defended all of my arguments, and that none of my points were shaken during the debate. However, Bassam made a number of arguments that I didn't get a chance to respond to. While Bassam was talking, I would take several pages of notes, but I would only get to respond to about a third (sometimes less) of his points. So I think the debate was close.

As for the second debate, I think I successfully answered all of Bassam's arguments for Islam, and I don't think he refuted any of my arguments against Islam. Nevertheless, looking over my notes, I see that he made a few responses that I didn't have time to answer. But I still didn't see a successful argument for Islam.

These debates were rather long (about two and a half hours each), but they were action-packed.

 


Sahih al-Bukhari 6921–On the Killing of Apostates

Posted by David Wood - August 1, 2008 on 12:24 pm | In Answering Muslims | No Comments Ibn Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent."

 


« Previous Page — Next Page »