Monday, July 4, 2011

Apologetics 315 Interview

I just did an interview with Brian Auten at Apologetics 315 (an excellent site, if you aren't familiar with it). We discussed arguments for Islam, the Dearborn Arab Festival, and other topics. You can listen to the interview here.


simple_truth said...

That was as very good interview, David. You did a great job at articulating and explaining your POV.

I will check out Apologetics 315 now that you have made me aware of it. Thanks.

Gabriella Oak said...

Excellent interview ~ thank you.

It has raised a question in my mind, however, regarding the punishment for adultery. I know Mohammed ordered both Jews and Muslims to be stoned to death for adultery, and the sharia also recommends the same, yet the Quran only ordains either house arrest or 100 lashes.

I am pretty sure I have seen Shabir Ally argue that a hadith which disagrees with the Quran cannot be considered sahih. This seems perfectly valid and logical reasoning on his part. Does anyone know why those scholars who formulated Islamic law chose not to apply Shabir Ally's principle ?
Surely this means that the most learned Islamic scholars believed that Mohammed himself could abrogate Allah's word....

David Wood said...


(1) The "Verse of Stoning" is actually supposed to be in the Qur'an. Aisha had the only copy, and her goat ate it. That goat probably saved a few lives!

(2) Some Muslim scholars use the stoning penalty as an example of a sound Hadith abrogating the Qur'an (that is, an example of a clear command of Muhammad canceling a ruling in the Qur'an).

(3) The standard response is that the 100 lashes penalty is for fornication (having sex when not married), while stoning is for adultery (having sex while married). Hence, there is supposedly no conflict between the Qur'an and the Hadith. This view is most consistent with the Hadith and Muslim scholarship.

Hope that helps.

Christie said...

Good interview David. There was a lot of material in there good for answering basic objections.

I was wondering if you guys some sort of timeline on what you think will happen with the civil suit (ie what future dates have been scheduled for hearings, does the city have to respond by a certain date, etc), or are you just waiting for an undetermined amount of time for your case to get to the top of the pile?

-Chris Cali

Mike A Robinson said...

thanks for the fine and the very helpful interview. A-17 so often gives me valuable information on not just refuting Islam, but how to effectively reach out to Muslims. Wood, Rogers, Sam, and others from A-17 bring together solid scholarship that is born from truth tethered to men who minister in the trenches.

Gabriella Oak said...

Hi David,

Ah, the married/unmarried punishments makes sense.
As for the stoning verse, there is little doubt in my mind that Aisha threw it on the fire then blamed the goat. :)

Anyway, very many thanks for your response.

minoria said...


Great interview David.I also read Gabriella's comment about Shabir Ally.I have a very low opinion of him.He is not consistent.How to explain it?

Here I copy-paste from what I wrote at Yahya Snow's blog:

"Well,I think FMM answered well.I was considering JOHN and SHABIR ALLY and the Muslim idea that Muh. is prophesized in the Bible.

Obligatorily he has to be in BOTH the Torah and Gospel

It is in the Koran.Shabir Ally here shows inconsistency.

Shabir's Position

He says Mark doesn't say Jesus says he is God but John does.
He rejects the spear thrust in John as true(based on Raymond Brown,who rejects it also)
In the debate with Licona he rejected the 1 COR 15 creed.
He is favorable to the Gospel of Thomas being from 50 AD,and that the "Q community" believed Jesus never died but was taken alive into heaven.

All that is ok with me

Mainstream scholars,I would say the consensus(95% or more)reject JOHN as historical.

So does Shabir.So JOHN was not by an eyewitness,it is by 3 different authors or more,it is not historical,the historical Jesus never said he was God.

By mainstream I mean the ones Shabir studies:Sanders,Fredriksen,Geza Vermes,Bart Ehrman,Raymond Brown,Dunn.

He also accepts ideas from the radical scholars:Robert Price,Jesus Seminar,Carrier"

minoria said...


"Again it is ok with me

Alot of non-Muslim skeptics do the same.

I dont know what the exact position of the mainstream scholars is about the Son of Man,Kingdom of God and I say to You sayings in JOHN are,but...

I know mainstream scholars(and of course the radical ones reject and I repeat REJECT the rest of Jesus' sayings in JOHN as HISTORICAL,plus more


Muslims point to:

1.The "Are you the Prophet"phrase directed to JOHN BAPTIST and the

2.PARACLETOS sayings by Jesus

as "Muh is in the Gospel" evidence.

Shabir Ally has no support

His own NT scholars REJECT all that,John-Baptist was never asked that question and the HISTORICAL Jesus never said the Paracletos sayings.

So since it never happened then how can Muhammad be in the Gospel if the "prophecies" are inventions(according to Ehrman,Vermes,Jesus Seminar,etc)?

Then the Koran is wrong.Shabir,if shown that,to be consistent with his method,would have to accept Ehrmans,Sanders',Fredriksen's conclusion that those passages are false and say he can NOT use them as PROOF of the Gospel."

minoria said...

Hello Gabriella:

You asked about the stoning verse.Here is the answer:

Virgil On The Topics said...

Great site, I look forward to hearing the interview!

Virgil On The Topics said...

Great site. I subscribe to the podcast. I look forward to hearing the interview!

Islam Inquisition said...

I just wrote about the verses of stoning... I wish I saw your site David for more insight. As I learn more I'll tweak my posts.