Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Is Islam a Threat to the West? David Wood vs. Shadid Lewis

24 comments:

akairey said...

this debate was one of Mr. Woods' best!!!

ISLAM said...

Mr Wood is using a translation of the Holy Quran. A translation is not what was revealed but an interpretation of the text.
He failed to mention the hadith where the Holy Prophet said if there is a contradiction between his words and the Quran then reject his words and accept the Holy Quran.
Hadith consists of parts of what the Holy Prophet said in a particular situation and unless we know the whole incident the narrator may actually convey the wrong meaning to what was said.
Have a look at www.virtualmosque.co.uk

RMuhammad said...

@ Islam - at least 80% of Muslims have to rely on translations of the Qur'an since they don't speak Arabic. If you want to use that standard against Mr. Wood, then use it against 80% of Muslims worldwide as not using the correct Qur'an.

The problem with Muhammad's statement to reject his words if they contradict the Qur'an are threefold:

1) the Qur'an has more than enough contradictions to hand itself, using its own test of authenticity in Sura 4:82

2) ahadith which align with Qur'anic teaching only serve to show just how bad Islam is, such as authorization to have and rape captive women as sex slaves (Sura 4:3, 4:24, 23:6, 33:50-52, 70:30"what your right hand possess")

3) unless you are prepared to tell all Sunni Muslims to stop praying 5times per day, then you've accepted the Sunna trumping the Qur'an since 5 prayers come from the Sunna in OPPOSITION to only 3 prayers found in the Qur'an. If you say that the Sunna doesn't contradict the Qur'an on prayers but simply adds to more prayer times, then you're admitting the Qur'an is incomplete and insufficient, while it claims to be complete and sufficient.

RyanS said...



Islam, sounds like another excuse to cover up what Muhammad and the Koran say clearly.
To say that Arabic cannot be translated is just plain stupid.
Semantic languages are very simular and many have same root words.
The fact remains you cannot explain away the points made by David Wood.

admin said...

I agree with akairey: Mr Wood presented his arguments excellently.

In response to Mr Lewis' assertion that 174 children are being killed each year by drone strikes, consider that Muslim terrorists are responsible for > 21,000 attacks since 9/11, with each attack averaging some 6 deaths. That works out to about 9,500 people per year being killed by Muslim terrorists. I'd say that 174 number is almost miniscule in comparison, and even then, that "collateral damage" is the result of these cowardly terrorists hiding out amongst women and children in their own lands.

It seems that Mr Lewis either doesn't believe, or understand the principle of abrogation. He should take his own medicine and throw out what the scholars he loves to quote say about abrogation, and accept what the Qur'an says about it so clearly.

haveittodayray said...

Great debate, thank you Mr. Wood. When good men do nothing, evil always wins. Protect yourself, your family, your grandchildren and America folks.

akairey said...

@Islam...
so what you're saying the prophet doesn't know what he said in the quran AND the quran isn't clear as the quran has stated it IS clear 5 times?
So 1) why should anyone listen to a man who contradicts the quran?
2)why should anyone read the quran if it is NOT clear and the hadiths are needed to explain the quran, but yet they contradict the quran? I see a circle of reasoning here that doesn't work!

Walter Sieruk said...

The question may be asked "Just whaat is Islam ?" One of the answers to this that may be given is that Islam is a tyrannical/political system of mind control that has much power over the lives of millions of people around the world. In the light of this statment the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson may very much apply. For Mr. Jefferson decleared "I have sword upon the alter of God eternal against every from of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extremista Moderado said...

*disclaimer*

I haven't watched the debate yet, so i apologize if anything i post was answered during the debate

*/disclaimer*

ISLAM said...

"Mr Wood is using a translation of the Holy Quran. A translation is not what was revealed but an interpretation of the text.
He failed to mention the hadith where the Holy Prophet said if there is a contradiction between his words and the Quran then reject his words and accept the Holy Quran.
Hadith consists of parts of what the Holy Prophet said in a particular situation and unless we know the whole incident the narrator may actually convey the wrong meaning to what was said."


You know, none of your excuses holds up to scrutiny.

The "it's a translation" excuse it's a ridicule one. For starters, whatever you read/hear you interpret, regardless of what language you're reading/hearing it on. Not only that, you're saying that the only way to understand God's word is in its original 7th century arabic version, that even arabic speakers nowadays struggle to understand. Languages evolve through time, and arabic is not the same language it was 1400 years ago. And let's imagine that mr. Wood learned the 7th century arabic dialect that Muhammad spoke, or whichever century and dialect the quran was written on. Other than mr. Wood has been using a faulty translation, how is that supposed to excuse the things that are written on the quran? In fact, your "a translation is not what was revealed but an interpretation" raises more questions than it answers. Why couldn't God express himself in a way everyone in the world understands it regardless of the language it's being used to express it?

Your apologism of contradiction between Muhammad's words and the Quran should raise some red flags. Muhammad is supposed to be a prophet from God, speaking God's words. Why should it there be any contradictions between what Muhammad said and what's in the Quran? The fact that Muhammad himself needed to address such an issue is, by itself, very telling about Muhammad - just not in the way you're thinking.

As for the need to know the whole incident to understand what Muhammad said, i agree - to a certain extent. For example, if Muhammad said that women were given half of the inheritance of a man then not knowing that at the time women had no right to inherit anything or that men got twice as much because they were expected to support a family can convey the wrong idea. However, there's no amount of background information that can put a positive spin on "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (wait, doesn't the quran say "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion") or "You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew; kill him.".

Peter Gravato said...

Guys commenting here is good but you people can really be effective with your knowledge by focusing on young muslims here. they have no clue and are shocked when you tell them what they don't know. Join a facebook group like the muslim students of rutgers and act sincere so they don't block you or something. just quote hadiths that'll shock them and ask questions etc.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/rutgersmsa/?ref=br_tf

goethechosemercy said...

God is not an Arab.

Extremista Moderado said...

Phew, finally had time to watch the debate. Lewis is a demagogue who strays away from the subject being discussed.

His main argument for Islam not being a threat is that muslim nations are weak and that in fact, it's the US that could kill all the muslims in the world if it wanted to. Well, that's the main difference, isn't it? The US government is secular, there's no religious leader behind it spurring it on to attack non-christians. Sure, there's the fringe group of religious zealots that go around protesting against homosexuality, but that's it. Even if they resort to violence and hurt someone, they're still a fringe religious group, they don't represent the policy of the US government, and they'll be judged according to the law, who doesn't care about their religions beliefs. On the other hand, we have countries like Iran, whose politic and religious leaders have a long history of calling for the destruction of Israel and the West, Saudi Arabia financing mosques in Western countries, mosques where the preaching of "radical" Islam has been repeatedly reported, Afghanistan, whose deals in drug and terrorism training affect the whole world. See where i'm getting at?

Muslim nations having weaker military than most Western nations doesn't say a thing about Islam being a threat to the West. Like mr. Wood noted, there's more than one way of being a threat, and it's the islamic ideology the way it's perceived in muslim nations, the mainstream view of Islam the way it's taught to muslims on muslim countries, that feeds their hate of Western nations. For example, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston bombers, punched a Brazilian youth who had dated his younger sister for two years because the boy was not a muslim. Now, where did he learned that kind of religious intolerance?

Mr. Lewis also tried to appeal to emotions when he talked about the number of children killed in drone strikes. Certainly no one would say that they deserved to die, and certainly they weren't the targets of the strike - the targets who hid themselves among civilians are surely as guilty as the people who commanded and executed the strike (also, drone strikes are unrelated to the subject that was being discussed, which was "Is Islam a threat to the West?"). But if mr. Lewis wanted to talk about dead muslim children, he didn't needed to resort to examples from other continents. Case in point: Aqsa Parvez, strangled by her brother, with the complicity of her parents, for refusing to wear a hijab. Palestina Isa, killed by her father, with the complicity of her mother, for being "too Westernized".

I could go on about honor killings, but i believe i've made my point, those children he talked about (and provided no source for the number he stated) were neither the designated targets nor were they killed because of their religion, they died because cowardly people used them as human shields (also, drone strikes are less likely to cause collateral casualties than regular air strikes). Isa, Parvez and other like them were killed because their family decided that their behavior went against their religion - Islam. But that doesn't matter, muslim nations have less military budget than the US and therefore are not a threat, right? I guess me and my family shouldn't worry about that other family living across the road - all their members threat to kill us but i guess it's ok because they can't afford to buy a gun, therefore they're not a threat to me or my family, right?

Anthony Rogers said...

Islam,

That hadith is contrary to the Quran; therefore, we must reject it. :)

Peter Salang said...

Sorry.. out of topic. Anybody here know about this? http://www.dakwatuna.com/2012/02/29/19108/misteri-injil-kuno-pengungkap-kerasulan-muhammad-saw/

goethechosemercy said...

Quote:
His main argument for Islam not being a threat is that muslim nations are weak and that in fact, it's the US that could kill all the muslims in the world if it wanted to.
end

The serpent is a creature that crawls on its belly, makes no sound, has no limbs, and can only bite. Yet its bite is more often than not sickening, and sometimes fatal.
I rest my case.
Islam is profane, and yes, it's a threat to the West.
The threat is not constituted in strength, but in the evil collective will of the Ummah to dominate the entire world.

sebsite said...

Peter,
See this:http://www.aina.org/news/2012022916569.htm

sebsite said...

Peter,
see this also:http://69422.weblog.leidenuniv.nl/2012/03/07/a-1500-year-old-aramaic-bible-in-ankara/

vijaya prabhakar reddy said...

Thank u wood i pray for you and u r family .

vijaya prabhakar reddy said...

Thank u wood .

ISLAM said...

My name is Shahid but for some reason it has been changed to Islam here, without my knowledge or permission, as far as I can remember.

We too pray for Mr Woods that Allah may open his mind to the truth that is Islam.

The topic of the discussion should not have been "Is Islam a threat to the West?" but "What is the threat to humanity's survival?" When clearly the answer is White Christians! Remember WWI, WWII, nuclear attacks on Japan, incarceration of Japanese in the US during WWII, incarceration of so called 'reds' in the 1950s, the Korean 'police action', the Vietnam war and on and on and on.

haveittodayray said...

Shahid--thank you for your comment. Let's see America saved Europe from Hitler, as I recall. The hate that Sharia law and the Qur'an spills is unacceptable in the 21st century. You quote a lot of old news, how about updating your arguments.There are good Muslims everywhere, and there are radicals in all religions. Where is the Muslim voice speaking out against the recent violent murders of non believers at the Mall in Kenya? They are few and far between. Did you speak out on the violence, send me a quote where you denounced the Mall violence. Definitely, would like to read that. Good spirited debate is good for all religions, hatred needs to be condemned by all the World, my friend.

Extremista Moderado said...

ISLAM said...
"The topic of the discussion should not have been "Is Islam a threat to the West?" but "What is the threat to humanity's survival?" When clearly the answer is White Christians! Remember WWI, WWII, nuclear attacks on Japan, incarceration of Japanese in the US during WWII, incarceration of so called 'reds' in the 1950s, the Korean 'police action', the Vietnam war and on and on and on."

A muslim showing racial and religious intolerance? How typical. It's almost like those are mandatory requirements to convert.

"Remember WWI, WWII"
I remember that none of those wars was caused by religion. See, the thing with christianity is that it's meant to connect people to God so the religious concept of turning the other cheek is meant for personal relations, not to rule countries and foreign policy. If someone attacks, "white christians" fight back, just like "non-white people of other religions". Didn't the french and spanish drove out muslim invaders?

BTW, the Ottoman empire participated in WW1. It supported Germany and it lost. Badly. In WW2, the Mufti of Jerusalem was on Hitler's payroll. The consequences of his anti-semitism are still felt today.

"nuclear attacks on Japan, incarceration of Japanese in the US during WWII"
Japan was at war with the US. Many more civilians were massacred by japanese imperialism and its wars of expansion in Asia around the time of WW2 than died due to the atomic bombs. And many more would follow. Have you ever heard of the Manila massacre? The Kalagong massacre? The Nanking Massacre? Comfort women? Well, i can see why you might feign ignorance on the issue of comfort women, being a muslim and stuff. It's very similar to what muslims did since the birth of islam: kidnapping young girls to use as sex slaves. And the japanese government avoid adressing that issue, acting like it never happened. Just like muslims deny that their religion ever killed anyone. They always cry and try to spin muslim invasions as "self-defence". For example, muslims make stories up about the invasion of the iberian peninsula being justified because they went to free the spaniards from a tyrant king (they also cry in rage against the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan to overthrow despotic regimes, consistency was never an islamic forte).


"incarceration of so called 'reds' in the 1950s, the Korean 'police action', the Vietnam war and on and on and on. "
Care to point the connection betwen the caucasian race, the christian religion and wars fought over for non-reliogios reasons and in which people of several racial and religious background for for the US?


Do you want to know what's the biggest threat to the survival of Humanity? It's a totalitarian ideology who values death over life and discriminates against those who don't follow said ideology. Indeed, when you look around the world today it's very hard to believe that Islamic thinking has changed at all since its inception, especially on what concerns its tolerance of other religions. Do you know there were several pagan sects in Spain before the islamic invasion? Do you know that the first pogrom in Europe was committed by muslims? Do you know that it was muslims who ruled over the slave trade in Africa since the birth of islam?

Shall we look into the contributions of "white christians" in fields like math, physics or medicine and see how they stack against islamic contributions or do you admit your argument is a thinly disguised form of racism and religious intolerance?

RIJAS M K said...

When stronger ideology begin to threaten the weaker one, the weaker one will resort to violence as the last straw. This is a simple fact.
What happened to Christianity in the past is now happening to Islam. The modern liberal Ideology/view (though we call it western as it began in west) is way more strong than any religion. So wait, Islam will undergo a change and we will see it losing its teeth just like other religions.

On the other hand leaving Allah and fantasy religion aside, when u treat Muhammad as a mere man I cant stop respecting him. Considering the culture and Brutality of mankind at that time and specifically that of desert nomads, he stand out like a one of the greatest person in history.

David Wood said...

Wow! Silly comment on so many levels.

First, you seem to think that Islam is only violent because it's weak. But Islam has been violent since the moment Muhammad was able to raise an army. Were Western nations bothering Muhammad so much that he had to become violent? LOL!

Second, you seem to think that other religions are the same. They aren't. Christians are commanded to love everyone and to harm no one. That's been the command from the beginning of Christianity. So if a Christian kills in the name of Jesus, he's contradicting Jesus. If a Muslim kills in the name of Allah, he's obeying Allah.

Third, what strange criteria do you have that you call Muhammad a great man? Tell me which of the following things Muhammad did make him such a great man:

(1) having sex with a nine-year-old girl;
(2) beating his wife;
(3) marrying eleven women when his revelations only allow Muslims to marry four;
(4) allowing his followers to rape their female captives;
(5) promoting Jihad as a religious duty.

How is this any better than the "brutal" culture of his time?