Monday, May 17, 2010

UK Muslims Complain about June Debates . . . Three Debates Canceled!

For those of you who were interested in watching the debates next month (either live, on television, or online), the topics have been cut in half. Alas, some of our Muslim friends in the UK complained to Sheikh Awal that he shouldn’t be debating me, since I insult Muhammad. (By “insult Muhammad,” they mean that when Muslims slaughter people over cartoons, I post the cartoons so that people know what Muslims are willing to kill over. As everyone here knows, I have always condemned insulting Muhammad just to offend Muslims. I have also argued that people have a moral obligation not to give in to threats and intimidation, and to expose wickedness.)

My two debates with Sheikh Awal have been canceled, and due to this display of Muslim intimidation, manipulation, and bullying, Sam is no longer willing to debate Sheikh Awal. There is, however, no reason to cancel the debates with Sheikh Jowad Al-Ansari, so those will go on as scheduled (unless Muslims find some excuse to complain about those as well). There is also no reason for James not to debate Sheikh Awal, so I suspect that this debate will proceed as scheduled as well.

Unless another Muslim agrees to step in at the last minute (highly doubtful, with only a month remaining), in place of the canceled debates, we will have lectures on the debate topics at the scheduled times. There will be an open mic after each lecture, so that Muslims and Christians have an opportunity to ask questions, raise objections, etc. We will also announce that the debates were canceled due to Muslim complaints, and the reasons for the complaints.

I’m not sure who supported the cancellation of the debates, but based on past comments, I’m guessing that Yahya Snow is now engaging in manipulation to prevent open dialogue. (If I’m wrong in thinking that Yahya is the guilty party, please let me know and I will correct this post. I suspect Yahya because his work seems to revolve around complaining about people who inform others of the reasons for Muslim atrocities, and because he often goes behind people’s backs to complain about them in an effort to create division.)

It seems that debate and dialogue have suffered a major hit today. When Muslims kill people for criticizing Muhammad, I will always (and I mean ALWAYS) show people why Muslims are killing. This is non-negotiable. But it also seems that Yahya Snow has started a campaign of whining in an effort to shut down all dialogue with people who insist that Muslim atrocities must be exposed. And since they are taking the extraordinarily desperate step of contacting people around the world in order to shut down debates, it seems I will now be debating atheists (who aren’t nearly as sensitive and manipulative as our Muslim friends!). Of course, if this tactic is successful, we can expect further demands (e.g. nothing negative or critical about Islam, or no debates!).

I will say now that I regard the efforts of Yahya as a milder form of terrorism. To see why, consider Revolution Muslim’s threats against Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The message was, “Don’t insult Muhammad, OR ELSE” (where “or else” refers to being brutally slaughtered by Muslims). Yahya Snow has a similar message: “Don’t show people why Muslims are brutally murdering people, OR ELSE” (where “or else” refers to shutting down debates, as if this will get me to submit to their demands). I might as well proclaim now, and for all time, that I will never (and I mean NEVER) back down in the face of such manipulation and intimidation. When Muslims kill and slaughter, I am going to post the reasons (whether cartoons, videos, etc.) that supposedly justify the killing and slaughtering. If that means that dozens of future debates won’t take place, or that Sam and I will now need to focus on debating people who don’t look for excuses to avoid losing debates, all I can say is . . . “Farewell Debate! Long Live Liberty!”

On the positive side, I now have a ton of time for my "Qur'an Errors" series! Stay tuned!

****UPDATE**** Yahya Snow has acknowledged his responsibility in calling for a shut down to the debates. You can visit his (horribly deceptive) website to assess his claims (such as his claim that Van Gogh's "Submission" is pornographic). He added in the comments section:

I must say David's claim of "mild terrorism" is far-fetched and sensationalistic to an extreme.

David misses the point. The point is not to silence Wood but to make a statement of responsibility; why should Wood's behaviour go over-looked?...It sends the wrong message to the Truth-seeker and other apologists.

The way to guarantee a debate is not to incite and provoke but to produce material of scholarly substance and intellectual honesty

As for the sheikh's cancellation...it appears some other person(s) communicated with the Sheikh prior to me...this just highlights the fact that it is not simply a rogue individual who feels David Wood is not a responsible choice for a debate opponent but it ponts to a collective feel...this "collective feel" is vindicated by the said sheikh withdrawing.

Rather than Wood attempting to pass himself off as a martyr he would be better advised to self-reflect upon his recent behaviour which drew concern from both Christians and Muslims.

Observe his comment: "The way to guarantee a debate is not to incite and provoke but to produce material of scholarly substance and intellectual honesty." Translation: If you do something to offend Muslims, no debates! (Isn't that what I said his message was? And isn't this why I called it an "OR ELSE" mild form of terrorism. "Don't tell people why Muslims are butchering people, or else!")

Yahya keeps referring to my "recent behaviour which drew concern from both Christians and Muslims." Where exactly is the Christian concern? So far as I can tell, virtually every non-Muslim on this blog agreed that it's relevant to post the reasons (even if those reasons are cartoons) Muslims are killing and threatening people. (And if Yahya really believes in listening to concerned individuals, he might want to check out the concern over his behavior.)

So Yahya calls for a cancellation of the debates, but says that other people must have contacted the Sheikh. But why did they contact the Sheikh? Because of my recent behavior? Nonsense. I've always posted cartoons when Muslims kill over them. Long before this blog even existed, I posted the cartoons here when riots erupted. No one went berserk. I had more than two dozen public debates with Muslims after I posted these cartoons.

Or was it because I posted the "pornographic" video "Submission"? "Submission" was one of the first posts on this website ever, and I have reposted it numerous times. No one ever threw a tantrum over it until Yahya Snow came along. He goes around the internet saying, "Look, David Wood has posted pornography!" Really? Then why can a four-year-old watch this "pornography" on YouTube? Doesn't Yahya know that four-year-olds can't watch pornography on YouTube? But this doesn't stop Yahya. He goes around complaining to Muslims until everyone is convinced that they'd better not click on that (brilliant and moving) video, since it's filled with "pornography." These Muslims then go around the internet like Yahya, saying, "Don't go to Answering Muslims! It's filled with pornography! Don't discuss things with David Wood! He's an evil pornography-poster!"

This is pathetic. Yahya, you've been an instigating, division-causing trouble-maker since you got here. You were banned once for treating Christians like your Dhimmis. Later, I started letting some of your comments through, and they were filled with more irrational complaints. Now debates have been shut down because of your complaints and whining. Not only debates with me, but debates with Sam will not take place this year because of you. And yet you'll say, "NO! IT'S BECAUSE OF YOUR BAD BEHAVIOR DAVID!" Nonsense. I've been critical of Muhammad for years, and I've been posting videos and news-worthy cartoons for years, and it's never been a problem for Muslims. It wasn't a problem until you came along. What makes all of this worse is that you pretend to be respectful and kind, when your entire goal is to divide and conquer.

Well Yahya, you are now officially banned from Answering Muslims. If you're shutting down debate and dialogue because I've posted news-worthy cartoons on this website, then practice what you preach. Shut down the dialogue and don't leave anymore comments. It's a matter of consistency, you see. You can't say, "No debate or dialogue with David Wood" and then attempt to have debate and dialogue with David Wood.

Say "Thank You" to Yahya, everyone. He's doing some amazing work in the world (though it seems to consist of nothing but complaining, manipulating, backbiting, ruining events, shutting down dialogue, and so on). Perhaps he can join Osama Abdallah's website. He'd fit right in. (Actually, I think I would get along with Osama better than I would get along with Yahya.)

****2ND UPDATE**** I have heard from two members of MDI (Yahya and Sami), who say that MDI has nothing to do with boycotting any debates. At the same time, one of the American members (Farhan) seems to support the cancellation. But any action taken by individual MDI members doesn't seem to reflect any official position of the organization. So I've removed references to MDI in this post.

This does leave open the question of Yahya Snow's claim that I am being banned by a UK apologetics organization. Yahya is banned from AM, but he gets a one-time pass to clarify this issue. Which organization has banned me, Yahya? Some organization that I've never heard of? Or were you making things up about MDI?

8:30--Still waiting, Yahya.

9:00--No, I'm not PMing you, Yahya. You're the one who has decided to cut off dialogue, and as I've said, this means there will be no more dialogue with you. I've offered you a one-time chance to clarify your claim that I'm under a boycott by a UK apologetics group. So post a comment clarifying which group this is. After that, you and I will never interact again.

9:30--I repeat, Yahya, I'm not PMing you. You gave up the right to rational discourse when you called for debate cancellations, and most of us here want nothing to do with you ever again. So either post a clarification concerning which UK apologetics group has called for a boycott (of the infamous David Wood, who insists that the reasons for Muslim violence should be shown to the world), or quit sending me messages.

6;30 (the next day)--Well, we've given Yahya Snow all the time in the world to tell us which UK Muslim apologetics group has boycotted me. He still hasn't answered, despite numerous messages sent to me. Was Yahya making this up? I know he's made up quite a bit in the past. Is this Taqiyya? So much for Yahya's "nice guy" charade.

7:30--Well, Yahya now says that he won't reveal the UK Muslim Apologetics group that has boycotted me. A secret boycott sounds quite strange. What's the point of boycotting someone who doesn't know he's boycotted? Yahya has also complained that I'm vilifying him, when he's shown such dear friendship and concern for me. I invite everyone to go through Yahya's website and videos. He's been attacking me and Sam for months, with practically no response from us. Then, as soon as I respond, suddenly Yahya is my buddy and how dare I criticize him for calling for an end to my debates, telling people I've been boycotted by an unknown group, deceiving people about me, etc. This is my message to Yahya: If you want to be on friendly terms with people, you shouldn't do the sort of things you do. Stop it, and maybe people will start treating you as a friend. As long as you continue to act the way you do, don't expect people to pay attention to you. Based on your never ending supply of videos and articles, it seems you desperately wanted attention from me and Sam. Now that you've got my attention, why are you complaining? Did you really think you'd go around the internet attacking me forever (e.g. your complaints to Negeen and Nabeel, attempting to cause division), without a response? Change your ways, Yahya. Attempting to shut down debate is unacceptable. Read the comments here and see how repulsed people are at your behavior. If you want to be on better terms with them, you'll need to make some changes.

10:00--Yahya says I should contact the founders of every UK Muslim apologetics group I know of in hopes that I might figure out which one has boycotted me. Sheesh! I give up. Here's a summary of the conversation over the past few weeks:

YAHYA: "Don't deal with the unethical, immoral, wicked David Wood who openly displays pornography on his website! I'll send messages to his friend Nabeel and his friend Negeen to try and cause division! Yes, stay away from this evil person! He's so evil, he's been boycotted by a Muslim apologetics organization here in the UK!"

DAVID: "So which organization has boycotted me?"

YAHYA: "I can't tell you."

DAVID: "You can't tell me? There's supposedly a boycott on me."

YAHYA: "Well, in order to find out which Muslim apologetics group is boycotting you, you'll have to start contacting the founders of Muslim apologetics groups. Maybe you'll find the one that's boycotting you."

DAVID: "Do you know what a boycott is, Yahya?"

Then, strangely, after months of attacks, insults, and outright deception, and after he called for an end to two debate careers, Yahya had the nerve to insist that he's been a great friend to me all along, and that he's secretly defending me behind the scenes. Well, with friends like Yahya . . .

80 comments:

Sepher Shalom said...

If "insulting Muhammad" is reason to cancel debates with someone, does this mean we can stop debating anyone who has insulted Yeshua by saying He is a created being, no more than a prophet, and a slave of Allah? I find all of those assertions extremely offensive.

I mean really Muslims! You've had debates with David where the topic neccessitated arguing that Muhammad was a false prophet, but post a couple of drawings to provide context to events and, "Boom!", an Islamo-temper-tantrum. I think there is a good chance the responsible parties just didn't want to have to face you in debate anymore and they found an excuse.

I guess we get to hear some nice lectures on scientific errors in the Quran and Quran corruption now! :-) How much do you think the Muslims will complain after you post your arguments and there is no Muslim to make a formal rebuttal? .... No one to blame but your fellow Muslims :-).

Reconciled! said...

David,
Despite the imams unwillingness to debate you due to concerns by his fellow muslims that you will utterly embarrass him (by The Spirit of The Living GOD); I'm delighted that those issues will still be discussed anyways in an open forum. By The Grace of GOD I hope to be there and to be an active participant. As Good Stewards of GOD, continue to fight The Good Fight of Faith. GOD continue to bless All of you in the days ahead.

FOR HIS GLORY!!
Bro. Dwight

minoria said...

Hello David:
Sad to hear about the turn of events.I am now debating Israel and it's scary.All the Muslims approve of the suicide bombers.Maybe it would be good if there was a debate on why Israel should exist.It is rather easy once you get used to it.

GOOD INFO TO KNOW IF YOU DEBATE ISRAEL

The Israeli and Western Archives for the year 1948(year of Israel's war of independence)are all OPEN.

SO?
The ARAB archives are SECRET,closed.Why?It has been over 60 years,what is SO important that it has to be secret?
I SUSPECT that they have info that says the Muslims in 1948 were going to MASSACRE many Jews when they won.

Fernando said...

Hello professor David...

I'm sad aboutte this events butt I'm totally solidarious withe you in exposing the true nature off islam... "whate other solence, let's cry out loud us"...

Yahya Snow is becoming a synonimous of "ville"; "hipocrite"; "ignorante" and "devious"... a good example of a person following muhammad's example... matrue muslim indeed...

Responding to Christians said...

christians today are behaving with Muslims in the same way today as Jews behaved with Jesus 2000 years ago. Accusing Muslims of things which they never did and putting false allegation on them.
David do you not support the IRAQ War of the radical Christian George Bush just on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, when in fact there were no WMDs? You support the illegitimate occupation of palestine by zionists just on the basis of some baseless assumptions of the Bible. Your army takes unfair advantage of their presence in IRAQ by "witnessing" to the helpless Muslims there.
It is your Bible which preaches that it is lawful to kill babies and everything that breathes when you invade an unbelieving people. So repent of your vile and wicked ways, lest you be doomed to hell forever.

The Fat Man said...

Sad just sad

The Fat Man said...

Now I'm torn, I was going to show up and behave, and be polite and respectful. But now I'm thinking of showing up wearing a T Shirt with a stick figure of Mohamed.

Adam said...

Muslims running away to Debate....ha ha ha...In India we have Dr. Joker Naik. Who to runs away to face Christian apologists to Islam....

ha ha ha... I knew Kaaba worshipers and their apologists who love money and respect ...ha. ha ha these crooks are just saving their faces...

Bartimaeus said...

They are acting like children. Do you remember the bully from school when he confronts a person who won't back down tells you "good thing for you I got my new pants on" These guys should be on Paltalk where can use the read dot and consult prophet Google

Bartimaeus said...

Responding to Christians

By denying that Jesus is the incarnate you insult the Lord of Glory. You know that in an open debate that Mohammed would he exposed as a false prophet not because of some silly TV show.

And in closing the war in Iraq had nothing to do with the debate again you are afraid of the outcome.

And because I am a Canadian and not an American I can speak freely about George Bush. George Bush did does not representedChristianity or did conduct the war in the name of Christ but on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

However; the recent terrorist attacks are conducted in the name of Allah the false deity who you worship accord to what is clearly in the Quran and the Haddith.

mkvine said...

All this shows is that the Muslims are afraid to debate. Dr. Wood, Sam and James White have done an excellent job debating Muslims, its no wonder they are willing to cancel. I can't think of any other logical reason of why they would cancel the debates.

This also shows how WEAK hearted the Muslims are. A little cartoon will cause them to cry and whine like a little baby. Muslims! It's time to GROW UP and start acting in an adult fashion!!!! Be man enough to defend your position and stop cowarding.

David, you did nothing wrong by posting the cartoons on here.

I'm so dissapointed in you Muslims, I really did expect better from you. This action of yours is just trash...

Amy said...

I appreciate your PO very much the picture with the article. Continues to refuel!!

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

I sincerely hope you've established any members of MDI did this before making mass accusations, I've certainly heard nothing...

David Wood said...

Hi Yahya,

Good to hear from you. As I said, I listed the most likely suspects. If all MDI members testify that they had nothing to do with this, then I will change the post.

My suspicion that some members of MDI are responsible comes from Yahya Snow, who says that I've been blacklisted by a UK apologetics group. Unless he has another group in mind (in which case he can clarify), that points to MDI.

mkvine said...

Yahya, why don't you substitute for Sheikh Awal?

Apollos26 said...

@responding to christians:

And here we have again the typical muslim answer to a christian post!

Quote:

"christians today are behaving with Muslims in the same way today as Jews behaved with Jesus 2000 years ago." - Really? So, christians are spitting muslims in their faces and try to kill them if there is the possibility? By the way, what do you mean with "the jews"? You know that Jesus lived as a jew on this earth and that his disciples were jewish?! If that is so, by your logic christians become in a way automatically arabian?

2.Quote:

"Accusing Muslims of things which they never did and putting false allegation on them." - Really? would you might take time to disproof what David said? How does it come that he and his stuff always provide the sources for their argumentation? The hadidth's, the quranic commentators etc.?

What has G.W.Bush, Iraq etc. to do with cancellation of a debate and above all, what does it have to do with christian theology, with the christian message? Does G.W.Bush represent christianity, as Mohammed does represent Islam?

Islam is the only religion that is politically interested. Check up christianity and you will see that its interest is the Kingdom of God, not world domination.

3.Quote:

"It is your Bible which preaches that it is lawful to kill babies and everything that breathes when you invade an unbelieving people." - And again, another typical muslim answer when tey see that they can't defend themselves. 1. if you have problems with God, the creator of the world, punishing and killing his creature, than you have a biiiiiig problem. You out yourself on a bench and God on the dock. So, you want to judge God allmighty? - Very interesting. But that's just to make you see how stupid this argument is and to give the correct finish: If you studied christianity, you would know that noone of us goes around killing infidels (babies, women, old people) etc. If someone leaves christianity, what happens to him? - Nothing! If someone wants to leave islam? - Bye bye...

If you use our Bible to disproof us, don't use it than to approove Mohammed. Be consequent and if you were, I garantee you, you would and should leave islam as fast as light could travel!

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 1

Responding to Christians said: "christians today are behaving with Muslims in the same way today as Jews behaved with Jesus 2000 years ago."

You are going to have to explain the parallel there, because I have no idea how you think that works.

RtC said: "Accusing Muslims of things which they never did and putting false allegation on them."

Actually, in so far as what is related to the events of this post David is making true allegations about how Muslims are responding violently to people "insulting" them by depicting Muhammad. Stop trying to deny reality. I know it makes it inconvenient for you, but it's time to face facts: Muslims violently suppress freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. If you are against accusing people of things they never did, are you going to repudiate your Quran when it falsely accusing Jews of saying Ezra is the son of God? Surely Allah should be held to at least as high of a standard as you try to hold David to?

RtC said: "David do you not support the IRAQ War of the radical Christian George Bush just on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, when in fact there were no WMDs?"

What does the Iraq war have to do with Muslims in the UK trying to prevent David from debating other Muslims? Furthermore, neither Bush nor the U.S. was motivated by Christianity. Where are you coming up with this nonsense? When are Muslims going to figure out that the U.S.A is not synonymous with Christianity, and it does not make foreign policy based on it either.

RtC said: "You support the illegitimate occupation of palestine by zionists just on the basis of some baseless assumptions of the Bible."

Again, even if what you say is true what on earth does it have to do with the canceled debates? Why are you, and so many other Muslims, obsessed with the "Zionist Joos"? Seriously, what's going in your brain that makes you think Israel or Zionism has anything to do with Muslims trying to silence debates on perfectly legitimate topics? Will you condemn the companions of Muhammad for their illegitimate occupation of Egypt? Will you demand that Muslims leave and stop their occupation and oppression of the Copts?

(cont)

Sepher Shalom said...

Part 2

RtC said: "Your army takes unfair advantage of their presence in IRAQ by "witnessing" to the helpless Muslims there."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you not know that it is expressly forbidden for military personal to try to convert people in Iraq? Did you not hear of the major news story in which Bibles were sent to some soldiers in Afghanistan and the military forbid them from reaching the recipient soldiers and burnt them? Imagine the outcry if it had been Qurans. I'm sure there would have been riots all over the Muslim world, embassies would be burnt (wait...this sounds familiar). Talk about double standards! Look at the history of Islam. The Muslims took "unfair advantage" of military presence everywhere from Spain to western China in order to convert people to Islam.

RtC said: "It is your Bible which preaches that it is lawful to kill babies and everything that breathes when you invade an unbelieving people."

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between events that were commanded by God one time (and one time only) and things that are prescriptive commands for people to follow today. Who are those verses directed to? Joshua, Saul....certainly not anyone alive today, and not any of the followers of Yeshua. You see, the Bible is not read like the Quran, in which every verse is a prescription and order for all people and for all time. Will you hold Muhammad to the same standard? What of the Sahih narration in which he was asked about killing women and children in battle and he responded, "they are from them", giving permission to kill them. Are you prepared to condemn the actions of Muhammad on the same grounds?

RtC said: "So repent of your vile and wicked ways, lest you be doomed to hell forever."

I assure you true repentance only comes with belief in Yeshua Ha'Mashiyach, the King of kings, and as He said, "unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins".RtC said: "Your army takes unfair advantage of their presence in IRAQ by "witnessing" to the helpless Muslims there."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Do you not know that it is expressly forbidden for military personal to try to convert people in Iraq? Did you not hear of the major news story in which Bibles were sent to some soldiers in Afghanistan and the military forbid them from reaching the recipient soldiers and burnt them? Imagine the outcry if it had been Qurans. I'm sure there would have been riots all over the Muslim world, embassies would be burnt (wait...this sounds familiar). Talk about double standards! Look at the history of Islam. The Muslims took "unfair advantage" of military presence everywhere from Spain to western China in order to convert people to Islam.

RtC said: "It is your Bible which preaches that it is lawful to kill babies and everything that breathes when you invade an unbelieving people."

You seem to have a problem distinguishing between events that were commanded by God one time (and one time only) and things that are prescriptive commands for people to follow today. Who are those verses directed to? Joshua, Saul....certainly not anyone alive today, and not any of the followers of Yeshua. You see, the Bible is not read like the Quran, in which every verse is a prescription and order for all people and for all time. Will you hold Muhammad to the same standard? What of the Sahih narration in which he was asked about killing women and children in battle and he responded, "they are from them", giving permission to kill them. Are you prepared to condemn the actions of Muhammad on the same grounds?

RtC said: "So repent of your vile and wicked ways, lest you be doomed to hell forever."

I assure you true repentance only comes with belief in Yeshua Ha'Mashiyach, the King of kings, and as He said, "unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins".

minoria said...

Hello Responding to Christians:
You said:
"David do you not support the IRAQ War of the radical Christian George Bush just on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, when in fact there were no WMDs?"

Bush said he is Christian but when he,according to the evidence,stole the election from AL GORE in his first election,then I knew he was not.
Though ignorant of 90%of Christianity then(and then I was NOT a Christian)I knew enough to see he was pretending.Then came the the evidence he had fabricated the WMD thing.

" You support the illegitimate occupation of palestine by zionists just on the basis of some baseless assumptions of the Bible."

I think you are talking about 1948.The creators were SECULAR,they were followers of THEODOR HERZl,who was not religious.His "The Jewish State/The State of the Jews"in 1896,which began the Zionist movement was NEVER based on what the OT said,it was purely nationalistic.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David,

I know M.D.I's Elected Leader Abdullah was speaking to Farhan Qureshi in a group email about his futurue debates with you guys and has mentioned nothing about a boycott. So No Group action has been taken, as for individual capacity boycotts, Allahu Alim, I know nothing on that front too.

hugh watt said...

Oh dear, RtC: Do i see another once time only participant?

I thought, why did Sepher duplicate his comments to you in Pt.2 of his post; then i figured some people need telling more than once.

"You support the illegitimate occupation of palestine by zionists just on the basis of some baseless assumptions of the Bible."

I figure you want respond to this, but in the unlikely event that you do, let me ask you; what does the Quran have to say about "Palestine?, and who it belongs to? This is one of those Q's Muslims never respond to. Pls don't leave me holding my breathe, i'm dying to see your answer.

I figure you want respond to this, but in the unlikely event that you do, let me ask you; what does the Quran have to say about "Palestine?, and who it belongs to? This is one of those Q's Muslims never respond to. Pls don't leave me holding my breathe, i'm dying to see your answer.

David Wood said...

Well, that's good to hear, Yahya. If the rest of MDI says they weren't involved, then things aren't as they seem. I don't see how at least some members of MDI aren't involved, though, in light of things that Yahya Snow has said. He also says a UK Muslim apologetics group is boycotting me. But you're the only such group I know of, and therefore the only group that would be relevant for him to mention. (What sense would it make for him to say that some group I've never dealt with and never even heard of has decided not to work with me?)

Unfortunately, I don't see how future debates are possible. Yahya Snow & Co. seem hell-bent on shutting down debates, sending out complaint emails, and intimidating Muslim debaters. Sam Shamoun and I were just invited to come to the UK to debate at Kingston University, and we turned down the invitation. We're simply not going to set up debates, arrange topics, find locations, and send out announcements, only to have Muslims like Yahya raise a fuss and get things canceled at the last minute, when it's too late to change plans. (In the case of the UK, that would entail wasted plane tickets, etc.)

You know what's strange, though? I've always liked debate, mostly because I think it's the best way to introduce interested people to a topic. But when I woke up this morning, I actually felt good that I wouldn't be debating this summer, or the rest of the year (unless it's with an atheist). No last-minute preparation, no pressure, no stress. I can get the same information out, but in a different context (e.g. YouTube videos, articles, and TV shows). I still think it's best to get info out via debates, but life seems much easier when debates are no longer an option.

Responding to Christians said...

actually my earlier comment was a reply to david wood's opening paragraph in which he arrogantly claims to insult Prophet Muhammad and says he will continue doing it. thus my earlier comment was a response to that not to the cancellation of the debate of which I have no knowledge. But I too would not prefer any Muslim sharing a platform with David and people like him for they are not just worth talking to.
You should have been thankful to Prophet Muhammad that he did not take the side of the Jews and label Jesus as a bastard and an imposter but rather recognized him as a true Prophet of God. But u have never reciprocated this favour on him and have always been attacking this Noble Prophet for which u will have to pay to God.
by not believing that Jesus is God is not insulting Jesus as we believe it is a forged concept put on his personality. But u insult the person of Prophet Muhamamd. So there is huge difference. Prophet Muhammad's prophethood is an established prophethood for 1400 years. U protestants are very sick minded. At least Catholics had the brains to acknowledge that Prophet Muhammad was part of God's plan to bring God's message to the Arabian people.
Coming to G.W.Bush. He is a committed Christian and thinks that IRAQ war is a "crusade". These wars u are undertaking are certainly religiously grounded and instigated by the Bible. It is very easy for Christians to say that G.W.Bush doesn't represent Christianity, but facts speak louder than ur words that u r all happy when innocent lives, 1000 times the number that died on 9/11 are killed in IRAQ. and then u have the audacity to point to Islam and claim that the origin of violence lies with Islam. grow up christians. ur deception is vivid.

minoria said...

Hello Yahya Semour:

Good to see hear from you again,I was utterly surprised.I thought you didn't read us anymore.

Yahya Snow said...

Dear all...

I have recently been working on an appeal to the Sheikh concerned. This appeal has been posted on my blog, see here:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/appeal-to-reason-before-debating-david.html

and here:

http://yahyasnow.blogspot.com/2010/05/appeal-to-reason-before-debating-david.html

I must say David's claim of "mild terrorism" is far-fetched and sensationalistic to an extreme.

David misses the point. The point is not to silence Wood but to make a statement of responsibility; why should Wood's behaviour go over-looked?...It sends the wrong message to the Truth-seeker and other apologists.

The way to guarantee a debate is not to incite and provoke but to produce material of scholarly substance and intellectual honesty

As for the sheikh's cancellation...it appears some other person(s) communicated with the Sheikh prior to me...this just highlights the fact that it is not simply a rogue individual who feels David Wood is not a responsible choice for a debate opponent but it ponts to a collective feel...this "collective feel" is vindicated by the said sheikh withdrawing.

Rather than Wood attempting to pass himself off as a martyr he would be better advised to self-reflect upon his recent behaviour which drew concern from both Christians and Muslims.

eagle said...

Hi All, Why are you surprised? Once I knew the topics I knew that Muslims will cancel the embarrassing topics that will shame their malicious prophet and expose their indefensible religion. But we still can turn the negative things into positive. you guys can still make a lecture about the same topics that were cancelled just like you do in (Jesus or Muhammad). I think it'll be more useful.

Confident Christianity said...

In looking over what has transpired with the debates, I am concerned about the poor rationality involved with this situation. Take a moment to really reflect on what has happened. If David is accurately reporting the situation, then these debates are being shut down because specific Muslims are offended at the posting of one cartoon on his website. The posting of this cartoon was to show readers what exactly was causing so much offense to the Muslims (so much offense that some Muslims were willing to kill for it). David did not draw the picture. David did not condone the drawing of the picture. David is relaying the information surrounding the picture. So what is the actual offense David is committing? Is it that he is relaying information? What’s the actual offense?

Someone might say, “But it is not nice to make fun of a person’s very sincerely-held beliefs.” (Referent to the actual cartoon, not to David). I would agree with you. It is not nice, and that is not an activity I practice: that is, making fun of a person’s beliefs. But life is not always about being nice. And the truth certainly isn’t always nice. So what happens when we need to share the truth, but it is going to hurt someone, somewhere? (Such as David’s actions about sharing what happened with the cartoon.) Do we then shut down the truth-telling? And who gets to decide what to shut-down and what to allow so people don’t get offended? Now, this is where this practice of shutting down speech and debate becomes a bit ominous.

Someone has to decide who gets to say what. If that office falls only to one religious group then how will we be sure that this group is not abusing its power over speech and truth-telling? This is especially problematic when you understand that mankind is prone to temptations, and the temptation of power is a vicious one to overcome. So we must allow the freedom of speech, the freedom of “not-nice-ness,” and the freedom to offend people in order to keep in check those who may try to use ideology as a power tool over us.

I am wary of people who use ‘offense’ as the reason for shutting down interfaith dialogue. It makes no sense (due to the fact that everyone will be offended by people who disagree vehemently with them). It also smacks of truth-policing and power-wielding. We should have learned this lesson over and over from history already; but apparently, here we are again.

I do not know who is responsible with regard to squelching the debates, so I cannot point fingers. However, I can point out a few things. The debates were apparently scheduled and agreed upon prior to this situation. So no matter who is behind the Sheikh’s backing out of the debates, the Sheikh now has the appearance of not being a man of his word. Whoever gave him this counsel gave poor advice. He or she is now letting the Sheikh take the hit for their own lack of integrity; since this person will not disclose themselves. That is how the whole situation comes across. Why is it coming across this way? Well, remember, a person who is not Muslim does not take offense at a cartoon drawing of Muhammad (that is common sense). So to those who are not Muslim, this situation can appear as simply a lack of integrity and may go towards evidencing the invalid nature of the Islamic religion. I highly doubt that was the intended outcome, but that is what has happened, at least in my eyes.

Again, if David is accurately reporting a story about a cartoon and the events surrounding the cartoon, then why must Muslims pull out of debating him on other matters concerning Islam? It appears irrational.

If David is not accurately reporting the story, refute him.

Yahya Snow said...

In addition...regarding the sheikh's...please see:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/sheikh.html

Negeen said...

I agree with Sepher and Mary Jo.

Yayha,
I've been following your blog and your posts about David and I just got done reading your blog post on "An appeal to reason before debating David Wood and Sam Shamoun"

I can not help expressing how much respect I am losing for you the more this goes on. Your antics are becoming detrimental not only to the apologists involved, but to the audience who want to pursue truth. I was really looking forward to going to Michigan for these debates. Now 3 of those debates have been canceled. This is disappointing for a lot of people who do not need to be disappointed.

The Fat Man said...

I cant believe what a snot nosed little punk Yahya Snow is.

Charis kai Eirene said...

I can imagine your disappointment, Negeen, as someone seeking truth. Yahya's behavior seems like it would persuade you and other truth-seekers even more that Muslim apologists are not to be trusted and are willing to stoop to unprofessional and undignified levels.

I wonder why Muslims would prefer not to debate and address the claims that David and Sam will be raising. If a Muslim was doing a public presentation on Christianity, then I would want Christian apologists there to defend the Christian view. Now in this situation, rather than having actual debates where a Muslim apologist can actively address David and Sam's arguments, we will be hearing predominantly one perspective.

I agree with Confident Christianity that this is a poorly thought out move on the part of the Muslim apologists who now appear to not be men of their word and commitment. This whole fiasco is actually reinforcing the truth of the very criticisms that have been raised on this blog against Islam and its proponents.

Charis kai Eirene said...

I was just reading Yahya's response about ensuring a debate with "scholarly substance and intellectual honesty." So where are Yahya's products of scholarly substance? I don't think that whimpering and childish tantrums count.

Negeen said...

What is especially aggravating about this situation is that I honestly believed Yahya to be respectful, and someone who has had good intentions. However, as time has passed his actions are beginning to become ludicrous in behavior and are effecting many people. This is deceptive and dishonorable behavior. As the old saying goes Yayha, actions are louder than words. If you want people to believe that you are sincere in your intentions you must stop these deceptive antics.

John said...

I've been following the posts and comments here and watching the debates for a while, thought I'd comment

I've been noticing, it is really kind of ironic, counter-productive, and moreover unChristian the way that some Christians in comments and such will insult and revile the character of particular Islamic apologists.

The continual claim from David Wood in his debates on the peacefulness of Christianity is that Christians are called to love EVERYBODY (emphasis his). Yet when some of those same Muslims come here and read some of this stuff, I have to ask if what they're reading speaks the Love of Christ to their hearts?

I just don't see it as an effective ministry strategy. It sure as heck helps me feel smug in my intellectual superiority of those cowardly Muslims, but I really doubt it helps the Muslims realize that Jesus is the very real God who made and Loves them, and who can transform their lives. That's all I'm saying. Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good.

Not like I'm very good at it either :/

I hope this isn't perceived as an unwelcomed attack, I just want to see a better standard of behavior being used by Christians.

Sepher Shalom said...

David posted: "Not only debates with me, but debates with Sam will not take place this year because of you."

Unfortunately, Yahya is without a doubt thrilled that debates with Sam are canceled. Yahya posted on his blog an "open letter" for Sam Shamoun to stop debating.

I really appreciate Sam's willingness to stand in solidarity with David, but on the other hand it seems like an extra victory for people like Yahya that want to go around stopping debates and have anointed themselves the watchdogs of the Christian-Muslim apologetics world. Will the fact that this appears to be the work of Yahya and one other individual, not of MDI have any impact on Sam's participation? In the end the real losers are the audience, both Christian and Muslim, who wanted to hear the debates.

I also hope that MDI will sort out Yahya. He has (apparently falsely) inferred that they blacklisted David.

Good riddance to Yahya's comments on this blog!!! The guy only posts to try to attract people to his blog anyway.

mkvine said...

I actually thought Yahya Snow was honest, sincere, nice guy. I disagreed with him on a lot of his views, but I did respect him. After this "appeal" that he made however, I have lot ALL my respect for him. I will never again waste my time reading his blog.

Sami Zaatari said...

Hey everyone, just to clarify again, MDI (muslim debate initiative) did not arrange a boycott of this event, furthermore we have no official blacklisting or boycotting of Acts17 apologetics.

in fact just a few weeks ago i contacted Hogan for a possible debate, and we discussed possible future debates in the UK, and as everyone knows, Mr. Hogan is a member of Acts17 apologetics.

David Wood said...

John,

You're making a mistake that is all too common among Christians. You don't seem to think that loving people involves exposing falsehood.

Here you would say, "Yes, but every word should be kind."

That's simply unbiblical. Please read Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees and Sadducees. One would never find the kind words you think should always be present. Read the words of the apostles in Acts. You will find, quite frequently, brutal rebuke. In fact, read any book in the Bible. You will never find a book that agrees with you.

The primary purpose of this website is not to evangelize, just as Jesus' purpose in rebuking the scribes and Pharisees was not evangelism. The primary purpose here is to expose falsehood. The website is called "Answering Muslims," not "Preaching to Muslims."

And I know how you'll respond. "But they should feel the love of Christ in every word!" Again, please read what the Bible says. Please show me in one of Jesus' rebukes where people would feel the kindness of His words. The niceness of Christians is the main reason that Islam is spreading so rapidly. Christians are so afraid of hurting Muslims' feelings that they do not expose the falsehood of Islam.

With that said, I'm not saying that Christians should be mean. I'm saying that it's wrong to think that niceness is a necessary criterion of a successful message. If that's your criterion, virtually everyone in the Bible fails your examination.

The Fat Man said...

Ok I have calmed down. My first reaction was to unleash the dogs of war and liberate england from the likes of Yahya Snow. It was like freedom of speech was attacked in the US by Muslims in Great Britten.
Yes I know I can be quite dramatic.

To me honest this is more then interfaith dioluge. This is about a group of immigrant, who flee the persecution, poverty, starvation, disease and malnutrition in their own country to come for a better life in this country. Then once hear they start to dictate to us in this culture what we can and can not say or due.

John said...

David,

So, I'm sort of in fanboy mode that you responded to me. I seriously almost shrieked. I've spent the past week listening to debates you've had, and I've spent the past two days searching for more stuff you've written since I think I've read/listened to all of it already, and your piece on the Secret Gospel of Buddha is amazing, and can I have your autograph?

Jesus in Matthew 5 warns us that whoever calls his brother a fool is in danger of hellfire. Then in Matthew 23 He calls the Pharisees fools.

I don't think you should be lollipops and candy kisses to Muslims. Muhammad said messed up stuff, and be cause of this Muslims do things that are grossly immoral and sometimes sickening. I applaud you that you are willing to endure mockery from people who constantly characterize you as hateful and bigoted for simply stating the factual information of Islamic history. It's not even just a false religion, but an evil religion, and thank you for standing up to it.

My point isn't to leave the poor Muslims alone. It's that sometimes I'm afraid the Christian voice isn't Christlike. Jesus called out the Pharisees on how hypocritical and oppressive their tactics were. He didn't say how repulsed He was by Caiaphas' cowardice in striking a bound man and suspect that the high priest was getting erotic satisfaction from it.

Honestly, when I first clicked on "Submission", I turned it off because of the woman's nudity. I thought it ruined the film and it made me not want to watch it. I don't see what purpose it served having her be half-naked the entire time. I watched the entire thing anyway to hear what it had to say, but it initially bothered me.

Jesus did counter the Pharisees harshly for being false teachers, but I'm not sure He countered them harshly for being immoral people. You mentioned His treatment of the Pharisees, but what of His treatment of Zaccheus? I'm not sure that a Muslim climbing a proverbial sycamore tree and reading the comments on some of the posts would feel invited to dine with the King.

Your point about the Biblical model of rebuking false teachers is noted. I guess I just want to see less of an emphasis on the personal character of the Muslims you engage with.

"I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.""
- Luke 10:19-20

I hope you don't think I'm targeting you particularly, or this post particularly. It is more of a general feeling from the comments and posts that I started getting while reading recently.

I dunno. You're a really big intellectual hero of mine, so I feel kind of silly "debating" you, but it's also like the kid who gets sucked into his favorite TV show.

Okay, I'm done.

Love in Christ,
JL

Charis kai Eirene said...

John, I appreciate your concern for Christians as they represent Christ. However, I agree with David that you are a bit misguided in the notion that Christians must only speak in a way that makes people feel "love" in their hearts. When I read your remark, I immediately thought of Jesus' holy rage when he ran through the Temple with a whip and flipped over moneychangers tables, calling them out for the thieves they were.

The fact remains that there is a time for appropriate rebuke. Whenever I have received a deserved rebuke from a brother or sister in Christ, I have been very grateful that their love for me and desire to see me grow spiritually exceeded their qualms about hurting my feelings. The demonstration of true love to me in such instances was much more powerful than a mere warm, happy glow in my heart.

As Christians, we need to move away from this notion that niceness is the only expression of love. This is the very kind of thing that someone like Yahya tries to exploit. He pretends to be nice in order to gain trust, and he implores others to be nice in order to gain an advantage. As Negeen pointed out, his actions are revealing that although he may appear "nice" and "sincere," there is something deeply wrong with him.

Santos said...

Hi Everyone,

I've been following the thread with great interest.

Let me let everyone into a not-so-secret fact.

Muslim Speakers are refusing to debate David Wood, not because of what he says about Islam, nor because of a Cartoon (stop being a Drama Queen David! - you are not a 'free-speech martyr'). Muslim speakers have been debating many people of his ilk for a long time now.

The reason why Muslim speakers worldwide are now choosing to ignore David, is because Insults the Muslim Speakers he deals with - nothing more and nothing less. David Wood's ad hominims have gotten him into trouble.

David Wood will see more and more speakers turn him down. While Nabeel and others (who do not insult Muslim speakers) will get to continue their Muslim-Christian debating career.

It is clear that David Wood has used this blog to launch personal attacks on many individuals. and until he apologises for them, this state of affairs will continue.

My advice to David, is to follow the example of James White - for good Christian morals.

blessings,

DB

David Wood said...

Nice try, Santos. So are you Yahya Snow or one of Yahya Snow's buddies?

Now give us some examples. You've just made a serious accusation. Show me where I've insulted Muslim speakers I deal with.

Take note everyone. Santos says that the debate cancellations have nothing to do with cartoons or insulting Muhammad. Instead, the debates have been canceled because I insult my debate opponents. (I know that this claim must already seem ridiculous to anyone who has watched my debates.)

Well, there are many debates posted on this blog. Show me the insults. (And don't come back until you're ready to substantiate your claim.)

John Lollard said...

I actually just watched the debate David had with Yahya Seymour and Abdullah Andalusi, as well as the debate he had with Ali Ataei, and those men insulted him constantly throughout their talks, calling him ignorant, asking him to read a little bit, laughing at him for being so such poor research, and poking fun at his country of origin like it had anything to do with the debates.

I don't doubt there are other debates that do the same as well.

So if that's why Muslims are canceling debates, it seems inconsistent.

David Wood said...

Well, I personally thing it's hilarious when someone pokes fun at me in a debate. I also think it makes the debates more entertaining. Often, I'm friends with the people I debate, so nothing is really taken personally. I would find it absolutely absurd for someone to say, "But Ali Ataie said X, and that was mean, so no further debates with Ali Ataie!"

But you're right, it is inconsistent for someone like Santos to say that debates with me have been cancelled because I insult my opponents (and I still don't know what he's referring to). Any definition of "insult" he uses would rule out a ton of debaters. Should we cancel all debates, then? Yahya Snow and Santos would probably love that.

The Fat Man said...

Ok after reading Santo's post I'm not back to invading Great Britten and liberating it from the likes of Yahya Snow aka Santo's. Besides I dont like that fact that a British Company is bleeding thousands of Barrels of oil a day off the Gulf Coast.

mkvine said...

Santos (yahya snow or friends), that's so childish, grow up. I have seen ALL the debates that David Wood has on here and in none of them does he insult his opponent, that's a blatant lie. So you admitted that the debate is not cancelled for insulting Islam, or for the cartoons. We also know that in none of the debates did David insult anyone. That means there really no good reason for the cancellation!!!

Tom said...

Oooops! David, don't you see? You've consistenly refused to 'feed the alligators' (appease the worshipers of UllahuQuackksmoor). You NAUGHTY man! You never wore the kid gloves and you REFUSED to be politically correct! [GASP!] The HORRORS! You told the TRUTH about Islam!! SLANDER!

Well, then, how about we have you in a video answering the lies of one or another hapless sycophant of mudhummer from THEIR videos - as if it were a one-to-one debate? Are the studios with which you're associated equipped to do that sort of editing?

Pick out some of the best Moon-god apologists from some public video arena and slice & dice their videos so that their statements are clear and, umm, 'convincing'. [LOL!] (They would not hesitate to do this to your work). Then, handily refute their every argument - as you would have done anyway in a real debate - and give us all some hours of entertainment (and insight) as you pick apart their nonsense - just as you would have, anyway. Coming from you, I know this would NOT be as boring as it sounds.

Anyway, thank you for the wonderful work being done by you and your whole team. We need all of you, maybe even more than you realize.

The Fat Man said...

I'm thinking some Muslims don't fight nicely :)

Charis kai Eirene said...

As several people have already noted, those of us who have watched David Wood's debates know that he has never attacked his debate opponent with personal insults but rather the opposite is the case: he must occasionally endure insults. In debates with Muslims, David appropriately attacks their flawed argumentation and critiques the problematic views of Islam.

John made the observation that David puts up with a lot of insulting remarks and it reminded me of when Jesus said, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." This is why, as a Christian, I have to say that I would be more concerned about defending the truth about God and Jesus Christ than about someone personally insulting me. If I had the opportunity to take a stand for the truth in a debate, I would be glad to do it regardless of whether or not I feared being personally insulted by my debate opponent.

Now, Santos has made the claim that David's opponents are backing down because of his personal insults. We all know this to be false, but even supposing it were true, are Muslims really that much more willing to allow someone to present a negative view of their prophet and his revelation than to allow themselves to possibly be "insulted" by a debater? Is their personal pride greater than their concern for God's truth and honor? Is it so unbearable for them to endure an insult on behalf of their God and prophet?

How very interesting...

Zack_Tiang said...

Hi there.
I'm a 'fan' of the Answering Islam/Muslim and downloaded & watched a number of debate videos; by David, Nabeel, Sam, and others, against Ahmad Deedat (old videos), Nadir Achmed, and others...
Been reading a lot of the articles from Answering-Islam.org/Answering Muslims, and I must thank you all for your great and dedicated work in defending our faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. =)

I just wanted to drop an opinion regarding the current situation here...

It just seems the more they over-retaliate or over-react to these kinds of situations (negative views regarding their *coughmiscoughguidedcough* religion), the more they prove/display their religion is not of God's.

I really enjoy absorbing all the information you guys are sharing regarding the Bible and also what Islam teaches; all the history, holy scripture writings, scholarships, etc.
Keep it up and don't ever neglect the truth for your own personal benefits.
Look forward to new debate videos from you guys. =D

eagle said...

Dear Yahya snow, I sometimes see your clips on Youtube, and I found that all your speech is based on lies, deception and hypocrisy. I believe that all your fans are either naive, deceived or they know you are not saying the truth and they are proud of you. You are just obeying your prophet who allowed you to lie in three cases. And defending the religion of Allah is one of them, because this is considered kind of war with "infidels". However I know you are smart and I believe that if you think for ten minutes with neutrality you will discover that Muhammad is nothing but the Satan itself.

minoria said...

Hello:
What can I say?I read Yahya's blog and I got the basic idea it is essentially about the Mohammed cartoon(him as a BEAR) and later as a dog.

Yes,they are offensive,but what about us non-Muslims?We would like to see the cartoons.For us it is only a cartoon.Maybe one could just provide a link,on an experimental basis,for 4 months.I don't know,only a thought.

What worries me more is how Hizbullah and Hamas are defended by many(most?) Muslims and the Jew-hatred of many(most?)Muslims.

NOT A MARGINAL GROUP
I now know hatred of Israelis(er,Jews)is rampant,seeing how in a typical Muslim forum NOT even one condemns the terrorists.It is a forum where those same guys talk of peace and how beautiful Islam is and then hate Israelis so much they approve of Hamas killing them.The people are RELIGIOUS Muslims.I am not referring to secular ones.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Santos--

Welcome to this blog, friend. You have said something which would render me negligent were I to ignore it.

You said: "The reason why Muslim speakers worldwide are now choosing to ignore David, is because Insults the Muslim Speakers he deals with - nothing more and nothing less. David Wood's ad hominims have gotten him into trouble."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Although David and I have clashed on many points in the past, I have never had to say anything to him about ad hominems (and trust me, I would be the first to criticize him if he did, as he will vouch for that).

The vast majority of Muslims we debate end up being our friends, at least to the degree that we'll hang out with each other, enjoy sincere laughs and create good memories together.

Before you claim something like this, you need to provide evidence. Yes, David will go on tirades against the conduct of certain Muslims on this blog, but you can hardly call that an ad hominem against a Muslim speaker.

And your statement is false anyway, because "Muslim speakers worldwide" are not ignoring David, as is evidenced by the desire of Sami and MDI to continue debating him.

So, once again, welcome to this blog Santos. You will quickly learn that to post anything on this blog, you will have to be ready to defend your claim. Now is that time.

Sincerely,
-Nabeel

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Sami said:

"as everyone knows, Mr. Hogan is a member of Acts17 apologetics."

Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me, Sami. I'll be sure to add him to the Acts 17 website.

Sepher Shalom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Odo said...

David Wood,

This Yahya character embarked on a smear campaign to discredit you months ago. If you look through his blog please note most of the posts are nothing more than slander and defacement; the videos are directed at apologists, not 'facts about Islam' as Yahya sells it.

From the likes of what he has recently posted (and from what the peculiar Yahya-sounding Santos has said) it seems Yahya's fabulous work (and im sure others) will be directed at Dr. White next.

I also wanted to tell you David, that your blog is GREATLY appreciated. I have turned DOZENS of secular atheists/agnostics/Christians (who would explain to me why religions can't be violent because they are like 'rocks') towards AM, and now they are avid readers (and their perception of Islam has changed drastically, thanks to none other than the impenetrable shogun of Islam himself, David Wood...and crew).

I will continue to spread the word about AM to everyone I possibly can.

Thank you.

Odo said...

Yahya Snow,

If you are a grown man I am TRULY AMAZED. You are no scholar of any sort and light-years away from reaching academic status. It is hard to imagine you have credentials above a BA, yet you present yourself as this fantastically intellectual, methodological, moral and down to earth academician. I truly hope this time David will BAN you, and you will STAY BANNED. Oh, and nice misogynist acquaintances who appear to be regulars on your blog – guess David is a D man huh?

But I will pray for you my lost brother, by Gods Grace as much as I am able to.

Peace

Odo said...

Does this mean Sam Shamoun will not debate Mohammad Jowad al Ansari either?

Im really bummed about this...

Odo said...

Responding to Christianity,

You said:"You should have been thankful to Prophet Muhammad that he did not take the side of the Jews"

So? I guess being on God's side does not really matter to you, rather you care about 'which side Muhammad took'.

Hope that works out when you're face to Face.

Sam said...

Hey Guys, this is the REAL Sam Shamoun. I just wanted to post my perspective on what is going on.

It is obvious that Muslims are starting to get scared of David Wood since they realize that he is, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, one of the best apologists and greatest threats against Islam. And so they have decided to come up with a reason to boycott him.

They have tried to pull the same stunt with me, namely, I am too nasty, I am not Christlike etc., which again is simply an excuse not to face me in public since they know what will happen to their arguments by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

Moreover, David is my buddy whom I love tremendously. He is a man of integrity who loves the risen Lord Jesus, as does our other precious brother Nabeel Qureshi. I see David as my accountability partner who puts me in my place for the sake of Christ. If anyone turns against him (or Nabeel for that matter) then they are turning against me and I won't stand for it.

Besides, David knows that I try to avpoid debates and do not like to them or the ABN shows without him. So if he is out then I am out.

Finally, I must say that Yahya utterly repulses me. I don't think I have met a more irrational and conniving Muslim debater/apologist than him. He is on the same level as Nadir Ahmad, Osama Abdallah and Sami Zaatari.

He is one gentleman I WOULD LOVE TO DEBATE only for the purpose of exposing just how bad his arguments are and how irrational he truly is. Unfortunately he is backed down from accepting my debate challenge.

He also ran from Anthony Roger's challenge to have a written debate on the Trinity since he knew what brother Anthony would have done to him if he accepted the challenge.

Adam said...

@Responding to Christians

All your comments similar and typical to muslims of My country. Us War Iraq, Isreal etc etc... Dividing Christian by calling them Protestians and Catholic...

I think you from India or Pakistan because such dirty act are done by Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani Muslims..


BTW we are waiting to see Your Hero Joker Naik who is running away to Debate Christian apologists...one day face Bro David Wood, Sam Shamoun and Nabeel Qureshi and others...

Zack_Tiang said...

Since we're on the topic of Muslim debaters...
Not long ago I started collecting these debate videos, but mostly I came across are the old ones.

So, I would like to know your opinions regarding some of the 'older generation' of debaters... Mainly I'd like your opinion on Ahmad Deedat and Anis Sorrosh, or any other debaters that may have debated Ahmad...
Appreciate your sharing. =)

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Sami wrote:

Hey everyone, just to clarify again, MDI (muslim debate initiative) did not arrange a boycott of this event, furthermore we have no official blacklisting or boycotting of Acts17 apologetics.

in fact just a few weeks ago i contacted Hogan for a possible debate, and we discussed possible future debates in the UK, and as everyone knows, Mr. Hogan is a member of Acts17 apologetics.

Hogan replies:

I did respond to Yahya's debate challenge or inquiry some weeks ago.

My reason for writing this is not to slander Sami. I clearly stated in my reply that I was more than willing to debate him early last year and even began my research of Sami's writings prior to my intention to challenge him for a debate.

However, the death threats to one of his atheist or agnostic opponents and his later agreement to use dirty tricks in a pre-arranged debate against Keith Truth put me totally off.

My decision should not surprise anyone.

Virtually every co-worker of mine here in the UK who works among Muslims has been threatend with death, including me. At least four of my co-workers have faced physical attacks, beating and even torture; that includes me. Our websites have been attacked by Islamic internet terrorists; hence I hope my decision to recline such a debate is met with some understanding.

Furthermore, the treatment of Keith Truth, made me feel real outrage, it was disgusting and it simply put completely off.

I have however made it clear to Sami that my decision is temporary; I am considering such an event in future (I hope), but I need to be convinced that Sami shows a lot of change.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

To David and the rest, what is happpening here is simply: the Muslims are on the run, this whole matter about insult is merely a scapegoat.

Are Muslims gona make us believe that they never insult Christian debaters (good one); just watch the debates. And if its an insult to attack Muhammad, do Muslims then find it corret to attack the Christian belief in Jesus Christ?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

As for individuals such as Yahya Snow, he is in my opinion a wast of time.

His contribution of writing and youtube's virtually contain nothing, except words, and he constantly portrays his articles as effectively scholarly pieces of writing.

He gives a heck if a Christian girl is raped and killed by the followers of Islam, yet if we dare to respond and call the act demonic we are the bad guys. Yet we should be nice and respect full.

What is worse he is afraid to link to the responses of his opponents, which says a whole lot.

He fights Jinns in the night time, yet he has been running from me a mere human being since last Christmas. Lets get real.

Yahya Snow is a contributor who does not deserve this publicity.

hugh watt said...

Hogan said: He (Yahya) fights Jinns in the night time,"
I hope he sobers up!
This same attitude was used against Christians when Deedat was around. When we started refuting Islam what did the Imam's do? they told Muslims to stay away from us. So now i'm (we're) here and in other places, exposing Islam. What i've learned is you can't pretty-talk Muslims out of their deception. There comes a point in discussions when you have to tell it as it is. Truth can be more offensive than lies no matter how you say it!

RtC. Didn't think you'd come back on your claim regarding "Palestine." Oh dear, i'm laughing as i type.

Fernando said...

This was comming for a long while... exacttly since Yahya threattened me here publiquely iff I dared to answer to some off his false claimes publiquely and not to his email... people like him do desearve our prayers (always, always and in all circunstances) butt we do not nead to accept his behaviour since he's doing a incresingly new form off jihad...

Yahya: I know you are suffering a lot since I do not doubt you feel sorrow for your pathetic, in-mature and non-cavaleristic behaviour... that's whie I promise you my dearest prayers... May Jesus, our common God, bless you and your family...

Verumi said...

OFF-TOPIC:

Hello, everyone. I want to start reading the Qur'an, but I want to read a version that's arranged chronologically. I understand that's not possible compared to the chronological arrangement of the Bible, but I want a version that will give me some sense of context as I read the passages. Could you please help out a beginner? Thank you in advance. :)

minoria said...

Hello Hogan:
I did not know you have been threatened,it is horrible.It is so disgusting.I can not believe in the 21th century people are going to kill others for religion,but it's true.

Hiwot said...

David,

Why are you wasting your time with these guys? For Farhan Qureshi, the cartoons are too sensitive to look at them and therefore it hinders him to check the reality. I think he should be strong enough to examine others point of view regarding the situation. For the debater - Sheikh Awal, let him come back to the table when he is ready. For Yahya Snow, I am not sure what to say about him, he doesn’t give his readers the impression of a mature person or someone who could comprehend critic or dialog. After reading his blogs, someone could be in agreement with Odo, Hogan, and others that this guy is into insulting others, who oppose Islamic teachings. I agree that Yahya should change the name of his blog since his blogs don’t fit to the name given unless he wants his readers to think that “the Fact about Islam” is insulting and accusing others instead of confronting them in a civilized manner.

I cannot wait to watch your other videos regarding errors in the Quran.

Regards,

Fernando said...

Hi Verumi...

here's a link thate presents the surahs of the qur'an in chronological order:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2123

God bless...

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David and others concerned,

It appears that there is some concern on what might be seen as a moral and ethical basis to boycott your debates. For a much longer time, similar concerns have been displayed about Sam Shamoun too.

However, since participating in a few more debates than I previously had, I believe I can to some extent appreciate how we can be forced to slip from the borders of expected religious etiquette when our religious figures are insulted. So I am more prone to turn a blind eye to behaviour which I feel is inappropriate.

Although with all due respect, I believe the cartoons thing was a tad uncalled for.

Sami and myself are two MDI speakers and have no beef what so ever with Acts17 with the exception of Theological disagreements.

In fact, I will be taking you up on the conclusion of our last debate at some point David and did want to challenge Nabeel when I'm back in the West.

John Lollard said...

Verumi,

I heard about this one not so long ago

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0978552881?tag=thereligionof-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0978552881&adid=0TJDB7B2RDY4W69NAEYJ&

I don't own it, but it seems well reviewed. I'm also kind of hesitant about the translation, but it is arranged chronologically.

Odo said...

OFF-TOPIC RESPONSE TO VERUMI:

Hello Verumi,

Here is the chronology from left to right, It looks pretty accurate to me, Mecca came before Yathrib

Suras from Mecca

96, 68, (1?) 73, 74, 111, 81, 87, 92, 89, 93, 94, 103, 100, 108, 102, 107, 109, 105, 113, 114, 112, 53, 80, 97, 91, 85, 95, 106, 101, 75, 104, 77, 50, 90, 86, 54, 38, 7, 72, 36, 25, 35, 19, 20, 56, 26, 27, 28, 17, 10, 11, 12, 15, 6, 37, 31, 34, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 88, 18, 16, 71, 14, 21, 23, 32, 52, 67, 69, 70, 78, 79, 82, 84, 83, 29

Suras from Yathrib (Medina)

2, 8, 3, 33, 60, 4, 99, 57, 47, 13, 55, 76, 65, 98, 59, 110, 24, 22, 63, 58, 49, 66, 61, 62, 64, 48, 5, 9, (110?)

(Notice how the intolerant Suras COME AT THE END of Muhammad's life, ONCE he had all the power, i.e. Sura 9)

(Notice how the shorter ecstatic utterances of Muhammad came in the beginning of his life, the later Suras are long stories, again AFTER Muhammad gained power)

If you want context read the Hadith in conjunction with the Quran, which can be found here:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/search.html

BTW the books of the Bible are not arranged chronologically, rather canonically.

Hope you don't turn Muslim on us!

Hope you read the Bible already!

Happy Reading.

GreekAsianPanda said...

It's such a shame that this happened =( Just for "insulting Muhammad"!

I pray that James White will do well in his debates.

Verumi said...

Thank you for the references, everyone! Please know I did receive them via e-mail.

The Berean Search said...

Verumi,

These links might help you on chronology:

[Chronology]

[Chronology 2]

[Chronology 3]

You can use those charts to read a traditional translation of the Quran in chronological order. My personal recommendation on translation if you like a hard copy rather than a website with multiple translations would be A.J Arberry. Many University courses that handle the Quran and Middle-East will have his translation as a required text.

If you want a translation that also supplies you with a popular commentary on what the verses mean in the translation itself, I recommend the Hilali-Khan translation with parenthetical commentary (Muhammad Muhsin Khan and Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali). Some Arabic speakers have told me that this translation is less "sanitized" than some of the other popular ones. It has interesting material in the footnotes from Bukhari and Al-Tabari, and my copy has a 20 page essay refuting the deity of Christ, and a 23 page essay on the nature and obligation of Jihad in it as well. Most enlightening. Just be aware that it includes commentary and not just straight translation.

The Berean Search said...

Hello David,

I am saddened to see that this has transpired. I would like to tell you that your work in debates, on your blog, on YouTube, and on ABN has been so helpful to me. I have learned a great deal from you not just about Islam but also about analyzing people's claim and logic.

May the Lord Jesus Christ continue to empower you to work for His glory.

Anthony Rogers said...

I've been busy of late, but I would hate for my silence to be taken by Yahya as some weird indication that I am one of those nameless* Christians he refers to as agreeing with him over David. So consider this me officially signing my name to the list of peole who are disgusted by Yahya (and the nameless* UK group that is boycotting David).

------
*non-existent