Recently, some people on Twitter suggested that Craig Considine, an Islamic apologist I’ve written about several times (see here and here), debate either the brilliant David Wood or me. I readily agreed, and David suggested a four-man debate, with Considine and Reza Aslan on one side and Wood and me on the other. That was fine with me as well, but Considine haughtily refused, calling us “Islamophobes.”
Now, I’ve debated plenty of imams and Muslim spokesmen, including full-length debates with Anjem Choudhary, Omar Bakri, Moustafa Zayed, Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, Mubin Shaikh, and others, and briefer radio debates with Jaafar Siddiqui, Salam Al-Marayati, Hussam Ayloush, Hussein Ibish, As’ad AbuKhalil (the “Angry Arab”), Muqtedar Khan, and others, and TV exchanges with Ibrahim Hooper, Abdul Malik Ali, Abdulaziz Sachedina, and others. I also had an unforgettable discussion on the Qur’an with a London imam on the BBC. But many, many other Muslim spokesmen has refused to debate me, generally on the grounds that I am too hateful to deal with.
David Wood ably dismantles that excuse in this video.
Abraham says
Excellent video would love to hear the debates.
Rob says
I’m not so sure there’d be any honest debate, if Aslan is on the ‘other side’.
Describing Reza Aslan as a “sociologist” is very weird…
According to university records, he has a degree in- and teaches ‘creative writing’, but according to him, he’s an “expert in religions” actually, a “professor” with four degrees including one each in the New Testament and in Biblical History”.
He’s also described himself as having “a PhD in religious studies”…
As a serial, self-aggrandising liar; and an apologist for Islam, he is on record claiming that “Female Circumcision” – that euphemism for the genital mutilation, without their willing participation, of girls and women – is not a phenomenon with any link to Islam at all.
According to him, cutting off a girl’s clitoris is purely an “African tradition”, it has no link to the ‘Religion of Peace’; and happens hardly anywhere in the Muslim world.
Similarly, according to Reza, “honour killing” is unknown within the serenity of Islam – it’s all a “profoundly dishonest” plot to paint Islam in a bad light.
He claims that women are not treated unfairly in Muslim countries; but that they hold positions of high respect in Muslim society; and uses the examples of some “Muslim” countries who have female heads-of-state as proof of this claim.
Best of all, to show how violence has “no part in Islam”, he uses that single, tired old Quranic verse about “killing one person” being equal “to killing the whole world”.
Be glad that this debate won’t happen. It will save those watching Aslan’s sneaky moves from much un-controlled vomiting….
jihad3tracker says
CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO CLIP OF REZA ASLAN DANCING: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgElIwUkjEU
Smooth disco maneuvers from 1975, and a HAND CLAP TO START IT ! ! ! Gee, what a shame that Reza was not born early enough to go to the gay clubs and bars and bathhouses.
He could have worn a sequined shirt and satin pants, snorted poppers (amyl nitrate) and cocaine, having some real fun with the girlie men.
gravenimage says
Personally, I *like* to see Robert Spencer call Reza Aslan out on his bs. It is very edifying.
jihad3tracker says
HERE IS CONSIDINE’S EMAIL ADDRESS: craig.m.considine@rice.edu
SEND HIM A POLITE MESSAGE ABOUT HIS REFUSAL TO APPEAR ON THE SAME STAGE WITH DAVID WOOD.
You could even include a few passages from the Hadith where Muhammad is the most vicious, and some verses from the Qur’an showing Allah to be cruel, filled with blood thirsty hate.
****** MAKE THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL DECEPTIVE ******
That way it will actually be opened and read — not deleted. Be creative and pretentious, because “scholars” such as this guy are basically egotistical and shallow, worshippers of academic baloney.
Here is a subject line I guarantee he could not resist: “urban Somali cohort drifts outside standard deviation for religious hegemony”.
BUT COME UP WITH YOUR OWN POMPOUS JARGON — DON’T USE MINE ! ! !
jihad3tracker says
When you send an email to Craig Considine, BE SURE TO INCLUDE THE CLIP OF REZA DANCING — mentioned in my reply to Rob (10:47 AM) above.
ermom says
j3t,
Went to Rice U’s website, searched his name and came up with this article:
http://news.rice.edu/2016/03/14/freedom-of-religion-civic-rights-were-important-components-of-a-muslim-nation/
He totally ignores the Qur’anic verses, the Sunnah of Mohammed, which, IF AND ONLY IF the ”covenants” exist, simply prove the Big Lie that Mohammed cared about ‘freedom of religion and civic rights’ of Christians. When, in this paper, according to Considine, Mohammed guaranteed the ‘PROTECTION’ of those who honored him (Mohammed), Considine either doesn’t know or is hiding ‘dhimmitude’ and how ‘the people of the Book’ were required to pay the jizya, follow oppressive rules and ‘feel themselves subdued’. Either way, ignorance OR complicity, shame on Considine and Rice for having their students lied to.
AND YES, DAVID AND ROBERT, I’d love to see such a debate with the 4 of you. And David, it just shows the pathetic level of our schools, that you have to describe what a debate actually is. As one who judged debates for my daughter’s HS class, every American should understand what a debate is, and how to debate, both sides of issues. Maybe then our young people wouldn’t be shooting each other. Ya know, ‘use your words’, NOT violence. Ideas matter.
Gene says
Considine also ignores 1400 years of history.
t. says
Gene, he also ignores, like many others in the west, contemporary history of Islam and for that matter, all the rotten fruits Islam is producing!
Here is a sample of these fruits produced on a daily basis, all over the world, not just in Muslim countries-civil wars and strife, public disorder, vigilante justice, terrorist acts, sex slave trading of captured infidel females, female genital mutilation, sexual abuse of young boys in some parts of the Muslim world, systematic horrible persecution of Christians and other infidels in almost all Muslim countries, in public cutting of hands and chopping of heads of alleged thieves and other transgressors of Sharia, and above all, lying and deceiving practiced by many Muslims about the true nature of Islam, in all regions of the world where the majority are not Muslims.
Demsci says
Thanks for that link, Ermom.
Hahah, it would be “fother” for Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Jasser, Tarek Fatah, Majid Nawaz”, those who seek to reconcile Islam with, well, say, democratic system, ideology.
But guess what? Those mentionsed have, in estimation, VERY LITTLE support among Muslims . And very high disapproval rate, if at least they are known at all to Muslims worldwide.
There is a lot of work for Considine with informing Muslims of Islamic doctrine, isn’t there? Will the doofus admit as much? Nooooo.
BC says
I am currently reading about Nazi propaganda against, not just German Jews but all Jews. The egregious quality of their propaganda and its totally fallacious claims were of course not subject to scrutiny by the Germans (even if they questioned it) as the media newspapers, radio and film was under the complete control of the Nazi Party. There is a neat parallel with Islam today, how the Islamists would love it, if all scrutiny of the religion was completely banned so only one view could be heard. They are working constantly to that goal.
The basic fallacy of the Nazis claim that there was an all powerful Jewish conspiracy to destroy Germany and all Western civilisation, is exposed as false as we know how reluctant other countries were to take Jews as refugees in the 1930’s. some countries actively turned them away!
It is obvious if the Jews were so influential (they were not) they would have made sure that all Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany were welcomed.
We can see echoes of the anti semitism of those times today when those who hate Israel and apologise for Islam’s atrocities, blame everything on the Jews and still talk of excessive Jewish influence. On the other hand nothing of course is the fault of Muslims. Just as nothing was the fault of Nazi Germany!
Mickey says
Brilliant. Simple. Thank you, David Wood. Thank you, Robert.
Keys says
Aren’t there any very wealthy Islamophobephiles out there who can make this debate happen in a prime time nationally televised setting with a 3 week publicity lead up; then made in to an educational video for high schools and colleges throught the USA and world ?
Please step up.
gravenimage says
No one can make these Muslim apologists debate, Keys.
Curious Observer says
Dear Mr. (or Dr,) Wood,
I have been viewing your videos for quite some time. In particular, your video about Dianne Sawyer’s nonsensical depiction of Islam and also the one posing the question “Who killed Mohammed” were both cogently and superbly presented. It is indeed unfortunate that in your video above you have to explain what a debate really is and what its goals are. If the potential audience does not even understand this basic fact, how is it going to be able to evaluate the arguments of the debaters in a well-informed manner?
Keys says
CO, maybe most of the debate audience will not be able to adequately evaluate the arguments properly since most of the audience will not be experts. And in a relatively short debate most people will not be able to “rerun” the debate, or have time to do so.
However, lots of information usually not presented about Islam and Mohammad by “jihadists” will be exposed. That may spur some (even Muslims) to do further research on their own, perhaps, leading them to sites like Jihad Watch.
The truth is powerful; and once heard, even if not understood, will go in to the unconscious mind and heart to those who are open to it. Those who hear, it will have a harder time hiding it, or hiding from it.
We must not put our light under a basket.
Dom107 says
Yes David I couldn’t put it better myself. I would like to see you debate one to one with Richard Dawkins as I believe you used to be an atheist but are now a Christian
If you could convince me to believe in a god at all then you really are brilliant but as someone who looks at things rationally and only trusts verifiable evidence I don’t think you could but a debate with the high priest of atheism would certainly put bums (asses in American) on seats and millions of viewings on You Tube
Jay Boo says
Dum Dum 107
You should spend less time attacking Christianity and using false equivocations.
In addition.
Your first short sentence “(yes, I couldn’t put it better myself)” Is so obviously only there to hide and distract from all the following off topic drivel you posted and stealth discrediting of David Wood’s competence. If you want to see David put arrogant Sam Hawkins strait about mocking Christianity google that.
gravenimage says
Dom107 wrote:
Yes David I couldn’t put it better myself. I would like to see you debate one to one with Richard Dawkins as I believe you used to be an atheist but are now a Christian
……………………..
Dom, it is not Richard Dawkins who is spouting apologia for the evil of Islam. Whatever you view of Atheism, surely you do not consider it a threat as is Islam?
Mirren10 says
”Yes David I couldn’t put it better myself. I would like to see you debate one to one with Richard Dawkins … ”
Why ?
Demsci says
Nooo, Dom, Richard Dawkins and David Wood are both on the, say, “Democratic side”, and how brilliant too!
You want to spoil that? You want to focus on, well, from somes point of view, irrelevant differences???
I daresay NO! Get your priorities straight! Let Dawkins and Wood debate Muslims and Political Corrects!
BC says
Richard Dawkins is not the high priest of Atheism, even if Atheists had priest which of course is impossible. Your comment is offensive. He is one of the most well know writers on the Atheist viewpoint
and thanks to MSM is the most commonly referred to. Christopher Hitchens, sadly now deceased, was also a leading writer and broadcaster on Atheism and there are many others.
I became an atheist long before I ever heard of these gentlemen and I found the way there by myself
after a few years on being a Christian, when I started to see the hollowness and falaciousness of the whole set up. in other words I started to think for myself.
Larry says
You are correct when you state that Dawkins isn’t the high priest of atheism, but only partially so.
Dawkins is the High Priest of Antitheism.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god/s, antitheism is the need to prove that there is no god/s. The two are actually quite distinct. Atheists really couldn’t give a damn about the topic, but antitheists will try and shove their thesis down you throat at every opportunity. They are as enthusiastic in their proselytizing as any evangelical religious believer.
carol says
BC says “Christopher Hitchens, sadly now deceased, was also a leading writer and broadcaster on Atheism and there are many others.”
I’ve noticed many people seem to fondly consider Hitchens as an atheist but In his 2007 book “God is Not Great” Hitchens stated clearly that he was not an atheist but an antitheist. He once said that a person could be an atheist and wish that belief in God were correct, “but that an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion.” He felt belief in a supreme being did too much harm in the world and we were better off without it.
Spike1102 says
He was also pretty good on the subject of Islam.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Hate. Hate speech. Haters. Hate crimes. I hate that Spencer and these other guys going around beating up on the pro-Moslems, it’s such an easy thing to do, guaranteed 100% win rate, and fun to boot. I also hate that I can’t understand the pro-Moslem argument, based on factual reality, at least. I hate factual reality, it gets worse very day.
gravenimage says
Hilarious, APF.
mortimer says
Cowardice.
If Considine won’t debate with ‘ISLAMOPHOBES’, then WITH WHOM will he debate? With people who AGREE with him?
To debate with people who AGREE with Considine’s view would have NOT POINT?
Why does Considine not want to prove ALL the arguments of Robert Spencer and David Wood are WRONG?
Does Considine even believe his view CAN BE DEFENDED…is Considine just a windbag? Are his students being shortchanged?
If Considine can’t mount a convincing defense of his views, why would any university want him on their staff?
Keys says
mortimer just ripped Considine to shreds without even debating him !
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Almost every university wants him on its staff precisely because he adamantly refuses to defend his views. That’s what universities do nowadays. It the business they’re in. I’ve always said that Spencer could never ever get a job as a college professor. The liability insurance alone would make that impossible.
Mirren10 says
Bullseye, Mortimer.
Mind you, APF is quite correct, Considine is **exactly** the sort of ‘academic’ unis push today. Frightening.
Paul Clark says
I wonder if a debate with Muslims are worthwhile. How does one debate liars? When you catch them in one lie. They will tell another lie. Their entire religion is a lie. The Koran is a lie. Mohammed was a delusional liar. All of this can be proven, historically, scientifically. To me this is like interviewing a BLM rioter, thus giving him some validity, when none is deserved. I am serious how do you debate a liar? Oh, Just an immediate afterthought… we will find out when Trump debates ” Crooked Hillary.”
Keys says
Lies and liars must be exposed, Paul. Don’t you think?
Are there not usually bad consequences for not doing so.
If your child is continually exposed to lies (at school, or anywhere) would you not try to expose those lies and tell your innocent child the truth?
gravenimage says
Agreed. Exposing the lies of Islam is key to educating Infidels about the Jihad threat.
David says
Thanks for that humorous thought! It made be smile, laugh as well as raised my hope just a little for America’s future survival!
ECAW says
I’ve been annoying Craig Considine for months now but it’s all come to an end because he’s banned me from his comments section. I too have the impression that he fell in love with Mohammed. I also think I detect something of a messiah complex. He never answers reasonable questions but here is a rather comical exchange between us in which he wearily dismisses the idea of factual truth:
https://craigconsidinetcd.com/2016/02/27/video-a-christian-view-of-prophet-muhammad/
ECAW says
By the way, the reason (or rationalisation) for Considine’s benign view of Mohammed is the almost certainly fake Covenants of Mohammed with Christians, based entirely on the work of Canadian convert John Andrew Morrow.
I believe that the most well known of the covenants, that with the Monks of Mt Sinai must definitely be fake because it was supposedly written 17 years before Sinai was under Muslim control therefore it makes no sense for Mohammed to spare them from paying jizya etc.
More details here:
https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/mohammeds-apocryphal-covenants/
t. says
ECAW, that’s what is called a powerhouse of a blog! I didn’t know that you have your own blog, let alone writing eloquently solid, concise and scholarly arguments drawing on history, careful research and a superior analytical ability. Here is a sample:
“1. Regarding the Covenant with the Christians of Persia (2), Dr Morrow writes:
“As far as the Prophet was concerned caring for the ahl al-dhimmah or People of Protection is part of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. However this is taken up a notch by the Messenger of Allah who enjoins Muslims to care for Christians to the same extent that they would honour and respect the Prophet himself.”
What Golden Rule would that be? There is no golden rule in Islam other than a limited version between Muslims only. I have found few examples of any such benign reciprocity between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Koran or the hadiths, rather a relentless religious apartheid. If there was truly a universal golden rule in Islam then surely Muslims would have no objection to being placed in a situation of dhimmitude to Non-Muslims from time to time. But this has never been so. From its inception the adherents of Islam have followed Mohammed’s example in working to achieve dominance over whatever other religious groups they found themselves among.
This is the nearest Allah gets to a golden rule:
“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves…” (48:29)”
ECAW says
Thanks t. I didn’t enjoy ploughing through Morrow’s book but I thought it mattered to see whether Considine’s claims about Mohammed were based on fact or fantasy. I wrote to Dr Morrow to clarify some points and he was decent enough to respond but on the anomaly of the dates regarding the Monks of Mt Sinai he just produced some blether about Mohammed the long term strategic thinker.
Mirren10 says
”I’ve been annoying Craig Considine for months now but it’s all come to an end because he’s banned me from his comments section.”
Typical. Considine can’t rebut your arguments, so he bans. So exquisitely leftard. 🙂
Did he tell you, or did you just find you couldn’t comment anymore ? I must trot over and see if I can get him to ban me. 🙂
ECAW says
No, he’s just put up his pre-moderating shield and all that appears there now are sycophantic messages of support from Muslims.
Mirren10 says
Well, I went over, and my comment hasn’t been published. Quelle surprise ! 🙂
Seriously though, I can’t imagine what it would be like to be someone like Considine – so puffed up with his own conceit, so terrified of the views of others, so unable to engage honestly with anyone, and worst of all, with **absolutely no conception of what **truth** is**.
Quite terrifying, really.
Eur says
there should be debates at universities in the West about whether Islam is a destructive cult or not, on its place in a democratic society, one should speak about Islam from a political view Doral openly anota jihad, of the intention of Islam to conquer the West …. without taboos. And that stream reaches political parties who dare to propose a ban on the Islamic associations. The parties are not going to make their own accord, they need public support.
Emilie Green says
It’s happening. It’s maddeningly slow. The foot dragging continues apace. No one really wants to admit to it but the consequences are going to be harsh. For everyone.
But . . .
More and more are awakening to the reality that has been so hard for so many to accept.
Namely,
That Islam really is at war with the non-Muslim world. That the express words in the Quran mean what they plainly say, and that Muslims not only believe those words, they act on them. In short, that Islam really is a Religion of War, That the Religion of Peace facade was/is always a slogan to lull the foolish into a stupor.
eduardo odraude says
The core Islamic texts (Qur’an, canonical traditions about Muhammad and Islam, and earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad), prove what you say. Here are verbatim quotes from a university database and the earliest biography, where one can see that the core Islamic texts themselves show that Muhammad himself was a totalitarian and builder of a grotesquely violent, expansionist, globally ambitious cult.
LINK: http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
IQ al Rassooli says
Borne Again Muslims
It has become literally crystal clear and shocking to millions of Americans and Europeans that most of their Elites in the Media, Academia, Politics and Clergy are either utterly stupid or completely clueless regarding the subjects of Muslims and Islam.
People now realize to their utter disgust and horror the following TRUTHS:
That Islam does not mean PEACE but actually means Submission.
That Jihad is NOT a spiritual struggle by Muslims to commune with God because according to the Islamic scripture Jihad is literally the foremost pillar of Islamic belief as mandated in Muhammad’s Quran and Sharia:
Jihad is everlasting warfare against all human beings who are not Muslims called Infidels/ Kuffar (currently 80% of humanity of 6.5 billion souls) until all of humanity is either subject to Sharia or is EXTERMINATED!
That Allah is most assuredly NOT the same as the God of Jesus, Moses and Abraham no matter what all the Elites tell the world (including Pope Francis) because Allah is only the NAME of the supreme rock god of Pagan Arabia centuries before Muhammad and his Quran.
Hence Islam is not a Religion but a CULT belief system:
The Cult of Muhammad.
They are also coming to comprehend that no matter how outrageous and insulting the following statements are, they are none the less perfectly correct just by watching and reading what Muslims are doing against Infidels/ Kuffar all over the globe 24/7/365~
That Muhammad, his Quran, his Sunna, Sharia and each and every single one of his followers are:
Hatemongering, Misogynist, Warmongering, Duplicitous, Racist, Hypocritical, Disloyal, Intolerant, Irrational, Vile and totally Ungodly!
(Sue me!)
Every time there is a murderous attack by a Muslim, the Elites tell us that he/she is Deranged, Lone Wolf, Misunderstood, Crazy, Insane, Radicalized etc and has NOTHING to do with Islam!
Let me assure the readers that every single Muslim (Male or Female) is a potential Mass Murderer the instant he/she decides he/she is NOT Islamic enough (Sharia compliant) thus instantly turning into what I call
“Borne Again Muslim” Syndrome hence must become a murderous Jihadi. This has nothing what so ever to do with radicalization by anyone.
No matter how unpleasant and frightening my conclusions are, there is absolutely no escape from these facts that conform with and confirm every single act of terror on Earth committed by every Muslim anywhere.
In conclusion, I advise every one of our readers to Google Quran and read ONLY chapters 1 to 9 inclusive. No need to read the remaining 105 other despicable chapters.
It may take one a maximum of 2.5 hours of the most relevant reading in one’s life because of the existential threat posed by Muslims to all our children, our future generations, our way of life, our cultures, our religion, our freedoms and our civilization.
SPEAR OF JIHAD
There is only ONE version of Islam and or Muslims called FUNDAMENTALIST.
There are no SHADES in Islam such as Moderate, Militant, Radical or Extremist Muslims. Islam is Islam just as there were never Moderate, Militant, Radical or Extremist Nazis or Communists.
All Muslims are Jihadists. ALL of them; because they are all following one book: Muhammad’s Quran
I use Muslims to indicate all those who are followers of Muhammad and are Sharia Compliant because they are the ones who constitute the Spear of Jihad or the Sword of Islam.
Islamic Jihad has two intertwined components:
1. War Jihadists who are represented by the Head of the spear or the Blade of the sword of Islam
2. Stealth Jihadists who are the so called Moderate Muslims (the Silent Majority) who are represented by the Shaft of the spear or the Handle of the sword of Islam.
The Stealth Jihadists are the ones who supply the War Jihadists with Finance, Weapons, Intelligence, Shelter, Propaganda, Protection and Deception. They are of course family, friends and other Muslims.
Neither tip or blade nor shaft or handle are by themselves deadly; BUT tip and shaft or blade and handle together are weapons of death and destruction.
Hence it is irrelevant how many Muslims are War Jihadists (whether 5%, 10% or 20% of Muslims) because the remaining Stealth Jihadists (95%, 90% or 80%) are the ones who silently but diligently back them up.
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Kepha says
Kindly inform me where Islam speaks of being ‘born again’. As far as I know, the call that we should be born again comes from Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus recorded in John 3.
t. says
Kepha, that means you didn’t understand what he’s saying!
IQ al Rassooli says
Dear Kepha
You are MISSING the POINT of my statement
“Borne again” does NOT have to be only with Christians. Jews who decide to follow the LAW are also in their way “Borne Again”
Hence when a Muslim decides to follow Sharia, he/she also are “Borne Again” in their faith
That is why it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine which Muslim will turn into a mass murderer because each and every one of them is a POTENTIAL mass murderer the instant they obey Sharia and therefore NO Muslim should be allowed to live in any none Muslim country that they themselves call Dar al Harb meaning Territory of WAR of the Infidels/ Kuffar
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
t. says
“There are no SHADES in Islam such as Moderate, Militant, Radical or Extremist Muslims. Islam is Islam just as there were never Moderate, Militant, Radical or Extremist Nazis or Communists.”
“Islamic Jihad has two intertwined components:
1. War Jihadists who are represented by the Head of the spear or the Blade of the sword of Islam
2. Stealth Jihadists who are the so called Moderate Muslims (the Silent Majority) who are represented by the Shaft of the spear or the Handle of the sword of Islam.
The Stealth Jihadists are the ones who supply the War Jihadists with Finance, Weapons, Intelligence, Shelter, Propaganda, Protection and Deception. They are of course family, friends and other Muslims.”
IQ al Rassooli, this is probably the best summary I ever read, at least in a long time, about what still seems to be like a puzzle for many people here in the west, about the real intertwined nature of Islam’s different parts-jihad, its belief system, so called “moderate” Muslims and the “extremist” ones!
I didn’t know which part of your above comment to quote in my comment, here, as all parts were absolutely relevant, crystal clear and essential to seeing the whole picture.
“It may take one a maximum of 2.5 hours of the most relevant reading in one’s life because of the existential threat posed by Muslims to all our children, our future generations, our way of life, our cultures, our religion, our freedoms and our civilization.”
That’s exactly what I tell people to do, whom I warn about the coming disaster of Islam’s complete conquest and domination of the west, albeit without mentioning that it will take 2.5 hours.
I understand what you’re feeling, saying, the sincerity and the strong belief behind it, as I myself studied Islam, inside and out, over thirty years ago, and since then I started talking to people about it, long before the arrival of terrorism in the west, in the early 1990.s.
Keep it coming!
IQ al Rassooli says
Dear t
Thank you for your extremely kind remarks
I have been dealing with this subject for over 30 years now and the two examples I gave herein are literally the NUT SHELL of what Muslims and Islam are all about
The readers do not need books to study IF only they read chapters 1 to 9 of Muhammad’s Quran, they will know what Islam & Muslims think and hope for than 90% of humanity
SINCERELY
iQ AL rASSOOLI
kAFIR & pROUD!
kaag says
“The readers do not need books to study IF only they read chapters 1 to 9 of Muhammad’s Quran”
That’s true. Here they are shown in their correct chronological order with the bits which threaten us highlighted:
http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com
kaag says
“The readers do not need books to study IF only they read chapters 1 to 9 of Muhammad’s Quran”
That is true, and here they are in their correct chronological order with the bits which threaten us highlighted:
http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com
marc says
@kaag, Very nice resource, thanks for sharing
Lesley says
Evil lies shrink when exposed to the light of truth.
Debate and open discussion in the search for truth through logic is a creation of Western civilization originating with the ancient Greeks.
By contrast, insulting or portraying an unflattering truth is an offense punishable by death or other severe consequences in the Islamic world.
Truth will out, and cannot be forever suppressed, and Islam requires submission of all through the power of lies. This is why I believe we’re on the cusp of a third World War…
gravenimage says
Hear, hear, Lesley! I also believe truth will out.
Angemon says
Matches up with what I’ve been witnessing on his blog, where he writes about “islamophobia” (meaning any criticism of islam and muslims, or of his own ideas and assertions) and has recently started to pre-emptively moderate posts – i.e., posts require his approval to show up and anything that’s not uncritically toeing his line gets deleted. Ironically (or perhaps victim-playingly) he recently posted an article titled “This Christian Is Unfazed By Islamophobes”. My comment (“Please explain why you’re growing increasingly more opposed to criticism and opposing opinions, as it can be seen in the way you pre-emptively moderate – and delete – comments with the slightest hint of criticism or rebuttal of your arguments”) never saw daylight.
CC strikes me as a useful idiot, albeit one with a very special, virulent brand of idiocy, and a reminder of what his ilk has in store for those who don’t toe the line.
Mirren10 says
” … he recently posted an article titled “This Christian Is Unfazed By Islamophobes”. My comment (“Please explain why you’re growing increasingly more opposed to criticism and opposing opinions, as it can be seen in the way you pre-emptively moderate – and delete – comments with the slightest hint of criticism or rebuttal of your arguments”) never saw daylight.”
I went over there, Angemon, and left the comment below (referencing a reply he made to ECAW). Bet he doesn’t publish it ! 🙂
mirren10
09/26/2016 at 11:34 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
”These nasty comments directed towards me certainly do not faze me in any way whatsoever. They do not intimidate me. They do not stop me from speaking the truth. ”
That’s interesting. Yet in your reply to a commenter on your article/ video about mohammed, (how Christians should accept him as a ‘prophet’) you say this;
”I am a bit weary of people that believe that they are capable of grasping “factual truth”. I admire Socrates because he put forth the great line “I know that I do not know”.
So, which is it, Considine ? Do you accept the concept of factual truth, or only when it suits you ? ?
ECAW says
Yes, we know that Considine doesn’t know too, but in Socrates’ case it wasn’t just from confusion 🙂
eduardo odraude says
David Wood and Robert Spencer are worth a thousand of these damned apologists for Islam and Islam’s dupes, slaves, and totalitarians. The nasty deadly Islamic muck would have been flushed long ago like the Nazis and communists, except there’s so much of the Islamic kind that only the roto-rooter of laser minds like that of Spencer or Wood can empty the world’s overflowing sewers of the violent mental slavery system of Islam. Non-Muslims of the world, unite! Fight back, within the boundaries of the law, or by civil disobedience. Hurry!
davej says
A real debate would necessarily include some criticism from both sides. But Islam brooks no criticism so the Muslim side would have to kill the critics, possibly on live TV. This might look bad so they take the cowardly choice of refusing to debate at all.
It is the exact opposite of the free speech notion that I may disagree with your view but I will defend your right to express it. Islam is not only the most violent “religion” in the world but also the most arrogant and insecure. It is Totalitarian, pure and simple.
NPR’s On Point recently the moderator used the tired trope that the “Bible contains violence too” , while conveniently avoiding the fact that in the reality of the here and now 98% of terrorist attacks are Islamic inspired.
davej says
Re David Wood’s points: I think many Westerners literally cannot bring themselves to believe the truth about Islam because to them it sounds so far fetched and medieval that it can’t be true. Or possibly these are just some archaic and outdated Old Testament – like teachings. The reality that Muslims mean every word of it and are acting on them globally and with great enthusiasm makes the modern progressive uncomfortable and at risk of being labelled a racist and Islamophobe. Far easier to just accept the ROP, spiritual jihad and victimhood argument.
Mark A says
Sounds like a great debate match up. Let us know if it is ever arranged.
Gary Devouges says
Methinks either David or Robert, alone, can take on a dozen of them….. so 2 on 2 is definitely not fair for them !
gravenimage says
David Wood Video: The Purpose of Debating Islam and Jihad: A Reply to Dr. Craig Considine
………………………
*Excellent* piece from David Wood here.
And this is interesting–there is an exchange going on right now in the comments thread here about “dialogue” and debate with Muslims and Muslim apologists:
“Pope urges ‘sincere dialogue’ between Christians and Muslims as he meets Nice jihad victims”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/09/pope-urges-sincere-dialogue-between-christians-and-muslims-as-he-meets-nice-jihad-victims/comment-page-1#comment-1528716
Of course, the pontiff is *not* calling for a serious debate–instead, he is implying that if only the victims had “dialogued” with Muslims, that we would understand each other and violent Jihad would not happen–which is utter claptrap.
As David Wood ably notes, the purpose of such exchanges is not to change the mind of your opponent, which in most cases is not going to happen–if it does, that is wonderful, but is a not a reasonable assumption in most cases–but to present a showcase for the audience to weigh the strength of each argument–especially when challenged.
Charlie says
It is obvious the muslims are afraid to debate because of the tons of evidences that will expose their lies. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this out. Islam will eventually crumble as it is like a castle made on sand without any foundation. I believe David and Robert are doing the right thing and I’m one with them. Bless to you guys and please continue your good works.
Will Doohan says
Yes, dar al-islam IS a castle made of sand and we must be the water that dissolves it.
Dan says
Love to see it.
Ain’t holding my breath.
CommoHull says
Suddenly felt ill watching ‘The Debate’ this evening. All those coached sound bites turned my stomach, so I ran to JW for the cure – reality & cold, hard facts. How great it was to see David Wood on Robert’s site! A Z-pac for the mind. Hope you can convince Considine & Aslan to have a go….it would be most entertaining!
dragaozao says
They’ll never debate because… it wouold be about facts, not ideology. And reality defeates them, even without debate.
Robert John Bennett says
David Wood is absolutely correct. The “other side,” deep-down, is afraid their position won’t stand up to scrutiny, and they are AFRAID to debate.
Personaly, I am one of those who would LOVE to hear such a debate, but I guess it just ain’t gonna happen.
RAB says
David:
I completely agree with your position and your explanation of the purpose of formal debate. For some time now I have been asking this very question: why bother to debate Islam with Muslims when the outcome is completely predictable? By insisting on the absolute perfection of the Koran and Muhammad Muslims have put themselves in an untenable position because there is by definition no possibility of a rational discussion about the fundamental beliefs of Islam. Consequently Muslims have no intellectual or moral foundation upon which to mount a counter-argument. This is why Muslims react with such violence against any criticism of the Koran or Muhammad. They must always return to the Koran and their “prophet” for their final reply. It’s a completely circular argument that goes nowhere. However, I do agree with you that the purpose of formal debate is to present both sides of the argument to the public not simply to enable one side to defeat their opponents. Nevertheless, the more I study Islam the less confident I am that it is even possible at this late date to educate enough people about the true nature of Islam in time to prevent the coming final confrontation between civilization and barbarism.
Dacritic says
I said somewhere else to David that perhaps he and Rob should give the Islamic defence side a handicap. They could rope in the coward Zakir Naik for a 3-on-2. Though… I doubt even this offer would be good enough to get them to agree.
Fred says
We in America must pass a law
1) no family law ( sharia ) in USA
2) any killing or terror attack
By Islamist to an American citizen because of Islam and its teaching
Must be punishing the Islamist original country of the attacker.
If the moderate Moslems are not going to reform Islam
Then they must pay the damages done by the jihadist to the victims
Tom Mayvaian says
Awesome response David!
Blessings!