Tuesday evening David Wood and I spent an hour shredding some fashionable and politically motivated lies about Islamic history.
Get the book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which does a great deal more of this, here.
Comments
Renatesays
To me, Hijab holds no credibility whatsoever. I have no use for him since I saw him lie about David Wood in that one debate. David Wood, on the other hand, is Today’s #1 Christian because he is honourable, he makes sense and he doesn’t try to win by trickery.
Elishasays
“David Wood, on the other hand, is Today’s #1 Christian because he is honourable, he makes sense and he doesn’t try to win by trickery.”
That makes DW an honest debater, but being a Christian is all about picking up your cross everyday and following Jesus Christ, as we are called to do by the Father (Romans 8:28-29). You really want to learn about Christianity? Please consider this humble brother:
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. – 1 Corinthians 11:1
gravenimagesays
Elisha, David Wood is a devout Christian,. What makes you think he is not Christian enough?
mortimersays
Hijab tried to win by trickery and deceit and thereby brought SHAME and DISRESPECT upon Islam and upon Muslims. EVEN HONEST MUSLIMS WHO ADMIRE FACTS AND SERIOUS RESEARCH will be APPALLED BY THE SHAMELESSNESS of Hijab’s low tricks.
All honorable people will deplore the absurd tactics adopted by Hijab. He is the one whose career will end due to the horrid smell of his own knavish tricks.
gravenimagesays
Mortimer wrote:
Hijab tried to win by trickery and deceit and thereby brought SHAME and DISRESPECT upon Islam and upon Muslims.
……………………….
Mortimer, as you well know, Islam is a creed that not just condones but *sacralizes* lying to the Infidels in order to benefit itself. The “Prophet” himself lied to Infidels all the time.
More:
EVEN HONEST MUSLIMS WHO ADMIRE FACTS AND SERIOUS RESEARCH will be APPALLED BY THE SHAMELESSNESS of Hijab’s low tricks.
……………………….
There might be a few who felt Hijab’s Taqiyya was not skillful enough–but this is very different from actually abhorring dishonesty.
Any Muslims who are actually upset over dishonesty must have a problem with Islam in general, and be considered half-apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists.
Renatesays
I haven’t yet, but I will watch the video in the link you presented. Thanks. I do think that David Wood was given the gift of logic and he uses it well to defend Christianity.
mortimersays
Response to Renate: When you have good arguments and good reasoning, YOU DON’T NEED TRICKS.
Renatesays
This is what has impressed me about David Wood. He cares enough about Christianity to have studied it and compared it to other religions in depth. He cares enough about the world to put himself out there in a debate for anyone in the world to view. He cares enough about the audience to present his impeccably researched argument properly. He’s no trickster. He’s the real McCoy.
Why do these know-nothings keep on trying? If one knows how to read then one can be assured that offensive jihad has been going on since muhammad started it to modern day jihad, be it ISIS or other terrorist groups or the lone jihadist..Offensive jihad has always been there and without it Islam would have died centuries ago.
Jihad,actually FEAR and FORC, coupled with the apostasy law (Which is FEAR) has held Islam together for these many centuries and no one can truthfully refute that.
Why the world refuses to see this and take necessary action is beyond reasoning.
Renatesays
I think they keep trying because intermittently, they make gains. To take a page from B.F.Skinner, we’d have to discontinue any kind of reinforcement we give them completely.
Was Jesus born under a tree as Muslim writings state or was He born in a stable as the true word, the Holy Bible, states. Now was He actually born on December 25? The Holy Bible does not give his date of birth.
Terry Gainsays
This is great. Thank you.
mortimersays
ISLAM WAS SPREAD BY THE SWORD
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Imam al-Ghazzali (d. 1111), the greatest Sufi master, Islamic intellectual and revivalist of Islam, who is considered the second-greatest Muslim after Prophet Muhammad, wrote on Jihad:
“One must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them… One may cut down their trees… One must destroy their useless book [Bible, Torah etc.]. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…”
Mohammed Hijab has DENIED and CONCEALED the fact that mainstream Islam has always encouraged violence against kafirs for the purpose of Islamic expansionism.
Rajasays
Mortimer,
Thanks for the information on Sufi Islam. I thought they were peaceful…
eduardo odraudesays
Yes, it can be a bit of a surprise to discover that Sufis are sometimes engaged in jihad. But perhaps the Sufis are more peaceful, on average, than mainstream Islam is. Sufis pursue a sort of mystical Islam that goes somewhat inward, and consequently Sufis may sometimes be less literal about Islam than the mainstream Muslim is.
gravenimagesays
Raja and Eduardo, Sufis are often presented as peaceful Muslims, but this is not the case. Just because Sufis are often victimized for their mysticism does not mean they actually reject orthodox tenets of Islam like Jihad.
Here’s some background on them from Robert Spencer:
“Indian PM: Sufi Islam ‘voice of peace, co-existence, compassion and equality”’
Quotes: “Muhammad’s successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the “Ridda Wars” (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.”
Quote: “In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed.”
gravenimagesays
All true, Mortimer.
Franksays
PS Beware of the new Robin Hood movie:
“Being Hollywood, it’s not enough to make the Church a villain. The Sheriff gives a speech that sounds like it’s a metaphor for President Trump’s defense of the country against illegal aliens, demonizing the Islamists who were fighting the Crusaders for control of the Holy Land. Since the Sheriff is a bad guy, this makes the viewer feel empathy for the Islamists and against the Crusaders (who have already been pictured as evil at the beginning of the film).” http://www.tonymedley.com/2018/Robin_Hood.htm
gravenimagesays
This is depressing, Frank. Thanks for the link. I wish I could say this surprises.
Even way back in 1991, Kevin Costner’s “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves” includes Morgan Freeman as “Azeem”, his heroic Muslim friend from the Holy Land. Never mind that this character is wholly invented, and was never a part of the Robin Hood tales.
This thing sounds even worse, though.
RonaldBsays
It was a grand discussion by persons of integrity and knowledge. I particularly liked the fact that I’m now reading the “History of Jihad” for the second time and Robert’s discussion matched and reinforced the facts and the timeline in the book. I appreciated the logic about the widely differing first 3 centuries of Christianity and Islam.
David is a natural comedian, but his humor requires a background knowledge that most people don’t have. This simply means that he can’t make money on humor that is far better and far funnier than most of the comedian celebs, who are abysmally ignorant.
I’d like to see some more discussion on the reasons why Islamic military expansion was so successful. Robert and David mentioned the Battle of Tours, which was pretty much do-or-die for a non-Muslim Europe. Why has Islam been so successful? I can’t think of any critical battle since the time of Muhammed when losing literally meant the disappearance of Islam. Whereas, there are multiple such battles for Christianity, the Battle of Vienna being another.
Anjuli Pandavarsays
RonaldB,
“I’d like to see some more discussion on the reasons why Islamic military expansion was so successful. …I can’t think of any critical battle since the time of Muhammed when losing literally meant the disappearance of Islam.”
I wonder whether you’ve considered Raymond Ibrahim’s “Sword and Scimitar”. He dissects four battle in different dimensions, all between Muslims and Christians, two of which one side won and two of which the other side won, all critical battles.
gravenimagesays
Ronald, there were a number of vagaries of history that gave Islam a huge leg up. The first was that it arose during the dark ages, just as the last of the Roman Empire was falling apart–in part due to pressure from invading barbarians. There is no way Islam would have make the terrible headway in the Levant and north Africa that it did if the Roman Empire had been anywhere near its strongest.
Then, Byzantium and Persia had had a series of devastating wars that had exhausted them, and left outlying areas for both empires weakly governed.
Then, Europe had suffered a series of disasters over the previous century, including famines and the plague that left the population weakened and depleted.
Together, this left factions that might have opposed Islam–or opposed it more effectively–far less able to do so.
There are other factors as well, but these are among the most important.
James Lincolnsays
Thank you David and Robert.
Fantastic video – all Jihad Watch readers should watch.
gravenimagesays
Wow–a complete inversion of history on Hijab’s part, saying that Christianity spread only by the sword, and that Islam only spread “organically”. I suppose that threatening death at swordpoint is actually pretty “organic” in its own way…
*Excellent* analysis from David Wood and Robert Spencer.
Terry Gainsays
No lie is so big that millions of Muslims won’t say it.
Each ideology has its Holy Trinity. Theirs is Covert, Pay The Jizya or Prepare To Be Killed.
gravenimagesays
Grimly true, Terry.
Anjuli Pandavarsays
David and Robert responded to this claim in a similar way, but I think this is misreading Hijab. This particular claim is so ludicrously out of step with the claims he made during the debate, some, if you can ignore the bombast and rudeness, of which were well put forth after having been carefully constructed. Here I’m not commenting on the “contest” itself. My point is that while he was rude and abusive towards David, he nevertheless took David seriously enough to construct serious arguments against him (whether he prevailed or not is not the point here).
The rant about Christianity having spread by the sword and Islam having spread “organically” was in response to a question from an African Christian in the audience. Hijab wasn’t making this claim, nor any claim, for that matter. He was saying to the African Christian, “I have so little regard for you that I’m not going to dignify you with a proper response. You are worthy only of complete shit and that’s exactly what I’m giving you now. I will tell you absolutely any shit I want and I couldn’t care less what you think about it. F*K YOU! How dare you question me, you f*ing black! Not only are you a Christian, you’re black as well. F*K YOU!”
That’s what was going on there. It was a straightforward racist rant that had nothing at all to do with the debate.
RonaldBsays
I’ve listened to about 2 hours so far of the 3 hour debate. I haven’t gotten to that particular question yet, but I agree with you. Hijab was haughty, rude, and condescending, but made serious arguments. He’s a tough nut to crack, being very verbal and seemingly (to me) quite fluent in Arabic and Islamic sources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k6MBedWTww
I think Woods did much better defending and explaining Christianity than in using internal contradictions to debunk Islam. Defenders of Islam consistently say it’s a translation problem and the many meanings of Arabic words and constructions that account for paradoxes. For sure, Malik took umbrage at any criticism or ridicule of Islam. He also made it clear his position is going to lead to equating criticism of Islam with racism and hate speech.
mortimersays
PSYCHOLOGY OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST BY THE SWORD … they feel no need to apologize! They are doing what the Koran and Mohammed ordered by FIGHTING THE INFIDELS.
Raymond Ibrahim explained the Muslim psychology vis-à-vis jihad:
“It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means “openings”—that is, the countries conquered were “opened” for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is NOTHING TO REGRET or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as FOR THE GOOD of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today’s Muslims).”
LytchZamsays
I’m halfway (maybe 2/3 – depending on how many pages of notes there are) through the History of Jihad. California schoolbooks routinely contend that one of the major ways that Islam spread was “through trade.” Honestly, is there any evidence of that? Is there even country or region, or even one city, that was converted to Islam “through trade?”
carpediademsays
Unfortunately Morrison uses the term “considering” far too often.
Goodness knows if he’ll go through with any of this.
gravenimagesays
Carpediadem, is this comment meant to be on this thread?
“Australia: Prime Minister Scott Morrison mulling plan to strip jihadis of citizenship, expel them from the country”
Forget what others made of Christianity or Islam. They’re all mortal sinners regardless.
Turn instead to the actual teachings of each master, let Jesus’s words speak their truth and Muhammad his own too.
No more using sinfull secular history, littered with evil immeasurable to discuss what is discovered in the books and literature of both these figures.
This is a spiritual war, an inner struggle to glean and hold truth from the dark machinations of human understanding.
Vann Bosemansays
The debate was, as mentioned in its description, difficult to sit through. It began with laying down strict rules of conduct and form. The Muslim speakers, moderators, and audience then ignored most of that most of the time. A part of me kept wanting Wood to quietly leave. This video illustrates why that would have not been ideal. At least partially, this video illustrates the breakdown of that debate and the pathetic impotence of most of the Muslims present to act in a civil manner when ideas are laid out for all to see. At some point there was no ignoring the fact that Hijab Mohammed had by his actions overwhelmingly qualified himself as a liar. By his action of not respecting the rules of the debate that he agreed to he had dramatically qualified himself as a liar before the subject of violence in Christianity was ever raised.
He could disrespect Wood till the cows came home before and after the debate. But when he agreed to the debate with the accompanying rules, he was bound by those rules. Clearly, very clearly, he never intended to follow the rules.
Ajay Kumarsays
Christian pulled nails in 1600 in Goa,India to spread Christiansnity. NO one even expressed apology till now. Will you.
WPMsays
“Christian pulled nails in 1600 in Goa, India to spread Christiansty??”
What in the world are you talking about??
Please explain
will you??
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Renate says
To me, Hijab holds no credibility whatsoever. I have no use for him since I saw him lie about David Wood in that one debate. David Wood, on the other hand, is Today’s #1 Christian because he is honourable, he makes sense and he doesn’t try to win by trickery.
Elisha says
“David Wood, on the other hand, is Today’s #1 Christian because he is honourable, he makes sense and he doesn’t try to win by trickery.”
That makes DW an honest debater, but being a Christian is all about picking up your cross everyday and following Jesus Christ, as we are called to do by the Father (Romans 8:28-29). You really want to learn about Christianity? Please consider this humble brother:
Fundamental Biblical Truths – Zac Poonen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBt5XYuSzV0&list=PLeUiCH7ooZ3n_Jc9Hf9aE0Sp3GiMmFVaf
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. – 1 Corinthians 11:1
gravenimage says
Elisha, David Wood is a devout Christian,. What makes you think he is not Christian enough?
mortimer says
Hijab tried to win by trickery and deceit and thereby brought SHAME and DISRESPECT upon Islam and upon Muslims. EVEN HONEST MUSLIMS WHO ADMIRE FACTS AND SERIOUS RESEARCH will be APPALLED BY THE SHAMELESSNESS of Hijab’s low tricks.
All honorable people will deplore the absurd tactics adopted by Hijab. He is the one whose career will end due to the horrid smell of his own knavish tricks.
gravenimage says
Mortimer wrote:
Hijab tried to win by trickery and deceit and thereby brought SHAME and DISRESPECT upon Islam and upon Muslims.
……………………….
Mortimer, as you well know, Islam is a creed that not just condones but *sacralizes* lying to the Infidels in order to benefit itself. The “Prophet” himself lied to Infidels all the time.
More:
EVEN HONEST MUSLIMS WHO ADMIRE FACTS AND SERIOUS RESEARCH will be APPALLED BY THE SHAMELESSNESS of Hijab’s low tricks.
……………………….
There might be a few who felt Hijab’s Taqiyya was not skillful enough–but this is very different from actually abhorring dishonesty.
Any Muslims who are actually upset over dishonesty must have a problem with Islam in general, and be considered half-apostates by their more orthodox coreligionists.
Renate says
I haven’t yet, but I will watch the video in the link you presented. Thanks. I do think that David Wood was given the gift of logic and he uses it well to defend Christianity.
mortimer says
Response to Renate: When you have good arguments and good reasoning, YOU DON’T NEED TRICKS.
Renate says
This is what has impressed me about David Wood. He cares enough about Christianity to have studied it and compared it to other religions in depth. He cares enough about the world to put himself out there in a debate for anyone in the world to view. He cares enough about the audience to present his impeccably researched argument properly. He’s no trickster. He’s the real McCoy.
J D S says
Why do these know-nothings keep on trying? If one knows how to read then one can be assured that offensive jihad has been going on since muhammad started it to modern day jihad, be it ISIS or other terrorist groups or the lone jihadist..Offensive jihad has always been there and without it Islam would have died centuries ago.
Jihad,actually FEAR and FORC, coupled with the apostasy law (Which is FEAR) has held Islam together for these many centuries and no one can truthfully refute that.
Why the world refuses to see this and take necessary action is beyond reasoning.
Renate says
I think they keep trying because intermittently, they make gains. To take a page from B.F.Skinner, we’d have to discontinue any kind of reinforcement we give them completely.
Halal Bacon says
you forgets the Pastafarians
https://rec-eph.primerahora.com/images/tnph3/615/304/1/1/615/304/2015/07/05/volador150706.jpg
mortimer says
He forgot that Jesus is called ‘The Prince of Peace’.
gravenimage says
Hijab does not believe in Jesus as the Prince of Peace, but as the “prophet Isa”, whose role in the last days is to kill Christians.
J D S says
Was Jesus born under a tree as Muslim writings state or was He born in a stable as the true word, the Holy Bible, states. Now was He actually born on December 25? The Holy Bible does not give his date of birth.
Terry Gain says
This is great. Thank you.
mortimer says
ISLAM WAS SPREAD BY THE SWORD
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”
Imam al-Ghazzali (d. 1111), the greatest Sufi master, Islamic intellectual and revivalist of Islam, who is considered the second-greatest Muslim after Prophet Muhammad, wrote on Jihad:
“One must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them… One may cut down their trees… One must destroy their useless book [Bible, Torah etc.]. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…”
Mohammed Hijab has DENIED and CONCEALED the fact that mainstream Islam has always encouraged violence against kafirs for the purpose of Islamic expansionism.
Raja says
Mortimer,
Thanks for the information on Sufi Islam. I thought they were peaceful…
eduardo odraude says
Yes, it can be a bit of a surprise to discover that Sufis are sometimes engaged in jihad. But perhaps the Sufis are more peaceful, on average, than mainstream Islam is. Sufis pursue a sort of mystical Islam that goes somewhat inward, and consequently Sufis may sometimes be less literal about Islam than the mainstream Muslim is.
gravenimage says
Raja and Eduardo, Sufis are often presented as peaceful Muslims, but this is not the case. Just because Sufis are often victimized for their mysticism does not mean they actually reject orthodox tenets of Islam like Jihad.
Here’s some background on them from Robert Spencer:
“Indian PM: Sufi Islam ‘voice of peace, co-existence, compassion and equality”’
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/indian-pm-sufi-islam-voice-of-peace-co-existence-compassion-and-equality
mortimer says
The Historical Reality of the Muslim Conquests by Raymond Ibrahim
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2012/the-historical-reality-of-the-muslim-conquests
March 01, 2012 Jihad Watch
Quotes: “Muhammad’s successor and first caliph, or successor, Abu Bakr, would have none of that, and proclaimed a jihad against these apostates, known in Arabic as the “Ridda Wars” (or Apostasy Wars). According to the aforementioned historians, tens of thousands of Arabs were put to the sword until their tribes re-submitted to Islam.”
Quote: “In closing, the fact of the Muslim conquests, by all standards of history, is indisputable. Accordingly, just as less than impressive aspects of Western and Christian history, such as the Inquisition or conquest of the Americas, are regularly taught in U.S. textbooks, so too should the Muslim conquests be taught, without apology or fear of being politically incorrect. This is especially so because it concerns history—which has a way of repeating itself when ignored, or worse, whitewashed.”
gravenimage says
All true, Mortimer.
Frank says
PS Beware of the new Robin Hood movie:
“Being Hollywood, it’s not enough to make the Church a villain. The Sheriff gives a speech that sounds like it’s a metaphor for President Trump’s defense of the country against illegal aliens, demonizing the Islamists who were fighting the Crusaders for control of the Holy Land. Since the Sheriff is a bad guy, this makes the viewer feel empathy for the Islamists and against the Crusaders (who have already been pictured as evil at the beginning of the film).”
http://www.tonymedley.com/2018/Robin_Hood.htm
gravenimage says
This is depressing, Frank. Thanks for the link. I wish I could say this surprises.
Even way back in 1991, Kevin Costner’s “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves” includes Morgan Freeman as “Azeem”, his heroic Muslim friend from the Holy Land. Never mind that this character is wholly invented, and was never a part of the Robin Hood tales.
This thing sounds even worse, though.
RonaldB says
It was a grand discussion by persons of integrity and knowledge. I particularly liked the fact that I’m now reading the “History of Jihad” for the second time and Robert’s discussion matched and reinforced the facts and the timeline in the book. I appreciated the logic about the widely differing first 3 centuries of Christianity and Islam.
David is a natural comedian, but his humor requires a background knowledge that most people don’t have. This simply means that he can’t make money on humor that is far better and far funnier than most of the comedian celebs, who are abysmally ignorant.
I’d like to see some more discussion on the reasons why Islamic military expansion was so successful. Robert and David mentioned the Battle of Tours, which was pretty much do-or-die for a non-Muslim Europe. Why has Islam been so successful? I can’t think of any critical battle since the time of Muhammed when losing literally meant the disappearance of Islam. Whereas, there are multiple such battles for Christianity, the Battle of Vienna being another.
Anjuli Pandavar says
RonaldB,
“I’d like to see some more discussion on the reasons why Islamic military expansion was so successful. …I can’t think of any critical battle since the time of Muhammed when losing literally meant the disappearance of Islam.”
I wonder whether you’ve considered Raymond Ibrahim’s “Sword and Scimitar”. He dissects four battle in different dimensions, all between Muslims and Christians, two of which one side won and two of which the other side won, all critical battles.
gravenimage says
Ronald, there were a number of vagaries of history that gave Islam a huge leg up. The first was that it arose during the dark ages, just as the last of the Roman Empire was falling apart–in part due to pressure from invading barbarians. There is no way Islam would have make the terrible headway in the Levant and north Africa that it did if the Roman Empire had been anywhere near its strongest.
Then, Byzantium and Persia had had a series of devastating wars that had exhausted them, and left outlying areas for both empires weakly governed.
Then, Europe had suffered a series of disasters over the previous century, including famines and the plague that left the population weakened and depleted.
Together, this left factions that might have opposed Islam–or opposed it more effectively–far less able to do so.
There are other factors as well, but these are among the most important.
James Lincoln says
Thank you David and Robert.
Fantastic video – all Jihad Watch readers should watch.
gravenimage says
Wow–a complete inversion of history on Hijab’s part, saying that Christianity spread only by the sword, and that Islam only spread “organically”. I suppose that threatening death at swordpoint is actually pretty “organic” in its own way…
*Excellent* analysis from David Wood and Robert Spencer.
Terry Gain says
No lie is so big that millions of Muslims won’t say it.
Each ideology has its Holy Trinity. Theirs is Covert, Pay The Jizya or Prepare To Be Killed.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Terry.
Anjuli Pandavar says
David and Robert responded to this claim in a similar way, but I think this is misreading Hijab. This particular claim is so ludicrously out of step with the claims he made during the debate, some, if you can ignore the bombast and rudeness, of which were well put forth after having been carefully constructed. Here I’m not commenting on the “contest” itself. My point is that while he was rude and abusive towards David, he nevertheless took David seriously enough to construct serious arguments against him (whether he prevailed or not is not the point here).
The rant about Christianity having spread by the sword and Islam having spread “organically” was in response to a question from an African Christian in the audience. Hijab wasn’t making this claim, nor any claim, for that matter. He was saying to the African Christian, “I have so little regard for you that I’m not going to dignify you with a proper response. You are worthy only of complete shit and that’s exactly what I’m giving you now. I will tell you absolutely any shit I want and I couldn’t care less what you think about it. F*K YOU! How dare you question me, you f*ing black! Not only are you a Christian, you’re black as well. F*K YOU!”
That’s what was going on there. It was a straightforward racist rant that had nothing at all to do with the debate.
RonaldB says
I’ve listened to about 2 hours so far of the 3 hour debate. I haven’t gotten to that particular question yet, but I agree with you. Hijab was haughty, rude, and condescending, but made serious arguments. He’s a tough nut to crack, being very verbal and seemingly (to me) quite fluent in Arabic and Islamic sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k6MBedWTww
I think Woods did much better defending and explaining Christianity than in using internal contradictions to debunk Islam. Defenders of Islam consistently say it’s a translation problem and the many meanings of Arabic words and constructions that account for paradoxes. For sure, Malik took umbrage at any criticism or ridicule of Islam. He also made it clear his position is going to lead to equating criticism of Islam with racism and hate speech.
mortimer says
PSYCHOLOGY OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST BY THE SWORD … they feel no need to apologize! They are doing what the Koran and Mohammed ordered by FIGHTING THE INFIDELS.
Raymond Ibrahim explained the Muslim psychology vis-à-vis jihad:
“It should also be noted that, to Muslims, the Islamic conquests are seen as acts of altruism: they are referred to as futuh, which literally means “openings”—that is, the countries conquered were “opened” for the light of Islam to enter and guide its infidel inhabitants. Thus to Muslims, there is NOTHING TO REGRET or apologize for concerning the conquests; they are seen as FOR THE GOOD of those who were conquered (i.e., the ancestors of today’s Muslims).”
LytchZam says
I’m halfway (maybe 2/3 – depending on how many pages of notes there are) through the History of Jihad. California schoolbooks routinely contend that one of the major ways that Islam spread was “through trade.” Honestly, is there any evidence of that? Is there even country or region, or even one city, that was converted to Islam “through trade?”
carpediadem says
Unfortunately Morrison uses the term “considering” far too often.
Goodness knows if he’ll go through with any of this.
gravenimage says
Carpediadem, is this comment meant to be on this thread?
“Australia: Prime Minister Scott Morrison mulling plan to strip jihadis of citizenship, expel them from the country”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/11/australia-prime-minister-scott-morrison-mulling-plan-to-strip-jihadis-of-citizenship-expel-them-from-the-country
Mr. Maxwell S. J. Fenton says
Forget what others made of Christianity or Islam. They’re all mortal sinners regardless.
Turn instead to the actual teachings of each master, let Jesus’s words speak their truth and Muhammad his own too.
No more using sinfull secular history, littered with evil immeasurable to discuss what is discovered in the books and literature of both these figures.
This is a spiritual war, an inner struggle to glean and hold truth from the dark machinations of human understanding.
Vann Boseman says
The debate was, as mentioned in its description, difficult to sit through. It began with laying down strict rules of conduct and form. The Muslim speakers, moderators, and audience then ignored most of that most of the time. A part of me kept wanting Wood to quietly leave. This video illustrates why that would have not been ideal. At least partially, this video illustrates the breakdown of that debate and the pathetic impotence of most of the Muslims present to act in a civil manner when ideas are laid out for all to see. At some point there was no ignoring the fact that Hijab Mohammed had by his actions overwhelmingly qualified himself as a liar. By his action of not respecting the rules of the debate that he agreed to he had dramatically qualified himself as a liar before the subject of violence in Christianity was ever raised.
He could disrespect Wood till the cows came home before and after the debate. But when he agreed to the debate with the accompanying rules, he was bound by those rules. Clearly, very clearly, he never intended to follow the rules.
Ajay Kumar says
Christian pulled nails in 1600 in Goa,India to spread Christiansnity. NO one even expressed apology till now. Will you.
WPM says
“Christian pulled nails in 1600 in Goa, India to spread Christiansty??”
What in the world are you talking about??
Please explain
will you??