Friday, October 31, 2014

The Muslim Feminist vs. Islam, Part One: Theresa Corbin Commits Shirk

Theresa Corbin read my response to her CNN article claiming to be a "Muslim feminist." She wrote a reply to the Qur'an verses that I quoted, but her interpretations show that she is no closer to actually studying an Islamic source than when she converted to Islam. Since she addressed nine Qur'an passages, let's take a look at one passage per day for the next nine days, to give her plenty of time to digest what her religion actually teaches. (When we're done, I'll put everything together into one long article.)

Corbin begins with Surah 5, verse 51, which commands Muslims not to be friends with Christians or Jews. Corbin writes:
1. Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

In this verse, the words "Awliya"- plural- or "wali" - singular- has been (badly) translated as "friends" or "friend"; however, the more appropriate translation would be a "guardian, protector, or advocate". Muslims are to be advocates and protectors for each other. And friends with everyone.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was kind to the pagans of Mecca and fought them only when they fought him. He made treaties with the Jews of Madinah and honored the treaties until they broke them. He received the Christians of Najran with kindness in Madinah. They argued with him about Islam, but he treated them with honor and respect.
Apparently, Corbin has never stopped blindly accepting what her Muslim instructors tell her to believe about Islam. (We saw this repeatedly in her CNN article.) When we actually examine this verse to see what it means, a few interesting things come to light.

First, for the sake of argument, suppose we go along with Corbin's translation. This verse, according to Corbin, commands Muslims not to take Christians or Jews as "guardians, protectors, or advocates." Interesting. So Muslims can't allow Christians or Jews to become police officers, government officials, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., in areas where Muslims are present, since doing so would violate the Qur'an. How moderate of our Muslim feminist!

Second, by saying that "awliya" and "wali" should not be translated as "friends" and "friend," respectively, Corbin just committed shirk. How so? Let's read another Qur'an verse in which the word "awliya" occurs:
Qur’an 10:62—Lo! verily the friends of Allah are (those) on whom fear (cometh) not, nor do they grieve!
This verse refers to the "awliya Allahi," which is translated as "friends of Allah." Corbin, however, says that "awliya" shouldn't be translated as "friends." Instead, she prefers "protectors." So the verse, according to Corbin, should be translated as:
Qur’an 5:51—Lo! verily the GUARDIANS OF ALLAH are (those) on whom fear (cometh) not, nor do they grieve!
So Corbin has just assured her readers that Allah has bodyguards! But surely these bodyguards must be more powerful than Allah if they're guarding Allah. This means that there are beings more powerful than Allah. Thus, Corbin has committed shirk.

Third, Corbin is correct that the word "awliya" can be translated as "guardians," "protectors," etc. Here are the possible translations according to Muhammad Mohar Ali's A Word for Word Meaning of the Qur'an:

Corbin seems to think that when a word has multiple meanings, you simply pick the one you like best and say that's the meaning. But that's not how Islam works. Allah claims that his commands are perfectly clear (see Qur'an 6:114, 11:1, 12:1, 16:89, 24:46, 27:1, 41:3, 57:9, etc.), so when he commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as "awliya," he's obviously aware of the fact that one of the most common meanings of the word is "friends." If he had meant something more specific, he could have clarified, but he didn't.

Thus, by claiming that she speaks more clearly than Allah speaks in his perfectly clear Word, Corbin is claiming to be a better communicator than Allah. This is yet another instance of shirk on her part.

Fourth, we know exactly how Muhammad's companions interpreted 5:51. Here's Ibn Kathir's commentary on the verse:
Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 5:51—Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them. Allah then states that they are friends of each other and He gives a warning threat to those who do this (And if any among you befriends them, then surely he is one of them.)

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Umar ordered Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari to send him on one sheet of balance the count of what he took in and what he spent. Abu Musa then had a Christian scribe, and he was able to comply with Umar's demand. Umar liked what he saw and exclaimed, "This scribe is proficient. Would you read in the Masjid a letter that came to us from Ash-Sham?" Abu Musa said, "He cannot." Umar said, "Is he not pure?" Abu Musa said, "No, but he is Christian." Abu Musa said, "So Umar admonished me and poked my thigh (with his finger), saying, 'Drive him out (from Al-Madinah).' He then recited, (O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends...)"

Then he reported that Abdullah bin Utbah said, "Let one of you beware that he might be a Jew or a Christian, while unaware."
So we have Ibn Kathir, the most respected Qur'an commentator in history, saying that "Allah forbids His believing servants from having Jews and Christians as friends, because they are the enemies of Islam and its people, may Allah curse them." (I guess Ibn Kathir didn't get Corbin's memo that Muslims are to be "friends with everyone"!) Ibn Kathir then goes on to give an example of how this verse was interpreted by Umar (one of Muhammad's closest companions, the father of one of Muhammad's wives, and the second of the "rightly-guided" caliphs). When Umar heard that Abu Musa had a Christian scribe, he ordered Abu Musa to expel the Christian from Medina, and he quoted 5:51 to justify his command. This Christian wasn't a "guardian" or a "protector" of Abu Musa. He was simply close enough to work for Abu Musa, and this was unacceptable.

The meaning of "awliya," then, for the early Muslim community, included any sort of close relationship apart from marriage. Instead of picking and choosing which meaning of "awliya" he liked best, Umar realized that Allah means what he says, so he didn't allow Muslims to associate closely with non-Muslims.

Hence, if we read the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Tafsir, the meaning of 5:51 is perfectly clear. Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with Christians and Jews, because Christians and Jews are enemies.

Corbin, of course, will have none of this. Rather than read the Muslim sources and conclude, based on a careful investigation of the matter, what a verse commands her to do, she prefers to believe that the verse means whatever she wants it to mean. She then vilifies and demonizes anyone who attempts to correct her.

The only possible influence of feminism on Corbin is that she seems to be convinced (despite a complete lack of studying on her part) that she understands Islam better than Allah, Muhammad, Umar, Abu Musa, and Ibn Kathir.

Tomorrow, we'll take a look at Corbin's next "misinterpreted verse" of the Qur'an: Chapter 8, verse 12. Until then, I invite everyone to watch my "Three Stages of Jihad" video again, since it clears up some of the silliness in Corbin's defense of 5:51. Corbin points out that Muhammad had non-Muslim friends, as if this somehow proves that 5:51 can't mean that Muslims aren't allowed to have non-Muslim friends. She ignores the fact that jihad proceeds in stages, and that the rules when Muslims are not in control are quite different from the rules when Muslims are in control. (Corbin's teachers, who filter her information for her, didn't tell her that. But I will.)


Unknown said...

Awesome response, Brother David. I can't wait to see the rest of your thorough response to Theresa's credulous and erroneous article.

m s said...

Hmm... What should be the Islamic punishment for those that commit shirk???? Please Corbin awliyah of Allah tell us.

Radical Moderate said...

David you wrote...

"So Muslims can't allow Christians or Jews to become police officers, government officials, doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc., in areas where Muslims are present, since doing so would violate the Qur'an. How moderate of our Muslim feminist! "

Great Point, and this interpretation has even greater consequences for Muslims living in Kuffar lands.

It means that a Muslim (she) can not call the non Muslim fire department if their (her) house is burning down or Non Muslim paramedics if they (she) is in medical distress, or Non Muslim police department to protect her from her Muslim husband who is practicing Islam on her.

Anonymous said...


Unknown said...

Corbin has went to one too many lectures where she gets fed the cake and ice cream version.

Radical Moderate said...

This woman needs to spend some time in the Islamic state, they will cure her of her shirk.

Dacritic said...

Haha yeah! Can't wait. This is even better than waiting for the next blockbuster movie or something. Watching David eat these Muslim apologists for breakfast has become the prime source of daily entertainment for me the past year or so. You come unprepared and when somebody knows your religion better than you, that's what happens. And what... "Vilifies and demonizes" people who correct her mistakes you say? Well, that's just the typical Muslim response to their religion being taken out into the sunlight isn't it? I'm praying some of these articles and videos to go viral soon!

gabriella oak said...

Hey Theresa Corbin !

Welcome to the David Wood Academy.

Prepare to be schooled !!

Keith said...

Hey Theresa... Enough with this nonsense and come back to Christ.

Unknown said...

Saying imams and islamic scholars are smarter than Allah is blasphemy not shirk

Radical Moderate said...

I just posted this on her blog, but she like Paul Williams has moderation turned on and I seriously doubt she will let the comment go through.

I often wonder if Islamaphobe-a-phobes (like yourself ) and Islamic extremist realize that they are just different sides of the same coin. The proof of this is in your very next statement.

“They both promote fear and hatred of large groups of diverse peoples.”…

So you do what you falsely accuse Islamaphobes like myself of doing. I as a Christian believe that Islam is a false religion with a false prophet and a false God, I am Kuffar for Life. However I do not “want war,” and I do not promote “a distorted view of Islam.”

Just because I believe that Islam is a false religion, with a false prophet and a false God does not mean I believe that Islamapobe-a-phobes like yourself can not live, work, raise a family and even practice your version of your religion in the United States of America. I do not believe in segregation, second class citizenship or discrimination of any kind. Can you honestly say that all Muslims say the same about Kuffar in Muslim dominated countries?

As far as war is concerned I was 100 percent against the US invasion of Iraq, (to the point of spending three days in jail with out food and limited access to water). I am also against any US military action in Syria and Iraq, and I believe that Muslims should be allowed to practice Islam on themselves and their own people in their own countries. With out fear of persecution, segregation, or discrimination. Can all Muslims say the same about Kuffar living in Muslim dominated countries?

As far as your accusations that Islamaphobes like myself promote a distorted version of Islam, I like David Wood argue against not only the historical version of Islam that is found in the Quran, Haddeeth, Tasfir, and Sirat literature but also your watered down westernized version of Islam, as it still denies the only means by which people can be saved from the just wrath of God. That being the blood atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

So for arguments sake lets say you are correct. That Islamaphobes like myself promote a distorted version of Islam, and that there are no historical facts or Islamic sources to back up this distorted version of Islam, and your version of Islam is the correct and true version of Islam. I am not a Muslim so it does not matter what I believe Islam is or is not. You are arguing against and promoting your version of Islam to the wrong people, since we are not Muslims. You need to be arguing and promoting your version of Islam to the Muslims who do not practice your “true” version of Islam. You need to teach them what Islam is since they are the ones who are practicing the wrong version of Islam.

To help you in your endeavor I can help raise money for you to travel to The Islamic State where you can teach the Muslims of ISIS that they got it all wrong.

So when do you want to leave?

Even if you where to convince the Jihadi Muslims that they got it all wrong, and all the Jihadi’s where to lay down their bombs and bullets, and Islam was to be the greatest love in since Woodstock. It still would not matter because you’re still going to hell since you deny the scandal that is the cross, who people like yourself think is foolishness. I implore you to save yourself from this wicked generation and bend the knee to the one who has the name above all other names, the one who by which all men are saved by, Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Do it before he rules over you with an Iron rod because it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

BTW David Wood is doing an excellent series exposing your distorted view of Islam. You can read the first installment here.

All other installments will be published here.

The Kipster said...

Sadly this woman has traded one lie for another as her previous affiliation was Roman Catholic and now she worships another false god. I can't believe that she identifies herself as a feminist either. she loves false religions where men run the show.

If she would only have the proper authority and not rely on the teachings of men (the Catechism and the Quran), she could have truth.

John 17
17 Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

Radical Moderate said...

Oh man I can not wait for episode two. She accuses us Islamaphobes of distorting Islam. Look at this utter distortion...

"2. Qur’an 8:12— Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

This verse was revealed about the Battle of Badr. The pagans of Mecca travelled more than 200 miles to Madinah with an army of about 1000 to kill the Muslims who numbered around 300. The Prophet Muhammad and fellow Muslims had suffered severe persecution, torture and even murder of their brethren for 13 years in the city of Mecca at the hands of these very same pagans."

Talk about distortion

ignatius said...

David, I tried sending this earlier and I think it got lost in cyberspace.

I'm with you on this Keith.

Theresa, why not talk this over with your husband and admit that you made a big mistake? Come back to Christ. He is our Savior.

Mohammed was a fraud. Some of his book is merely self-serving, other parts are spiritual banalities, still other parts point to demonic possession, as do some of the ahadith. You live in the US, so your chances of surviving an exit from Islam are better than those living in Islamic countries. Come away from it while you still can.

Bibliophile said...

Looking forward to this series! Muslim converts in this country may think they can 'pick and choose' meanings. If they should try to settle in Iran or Saudi Arabia, they will be in for a rude awakening. You truly have a moral obligation to warn them.

Bibliophile said...

Looking forward to this series! Those who convert to Islam in America may think they can 'pick and choose' interpretations they like, but, should they relocate to the Middle East, they are in for a rude awakening. You have a moral obligation to warn them! Keep up the good work, David.

David Wood said...

Sorpotal said: "Saying imams and islamic scholars are smarter than Allah is blasphemy not shirk"

I think it can be described either way. For instance, if Allah gives his commands, but they're so incomprehensible and unclear that he needs others to explain them for him, then he's got partners.

Bibliophile said...

Theresa, please come back to Jesus. In Islam, shirk is not forgivable. But Jesus will forgive all, and Jesus treated men and women as equals, so Christianity is more compatible with Feminism than Islam. Study the Bible for yourself, it doesn't matter what the priest said to you!

9:5 ...Really? said...

Great stuff.

Is she trying to deflect you from her most obviously ridiculous claim though? Islam's feminist credentials.

Like: as a women you should be available for sex when your husband requires it, except when you are menstruating obviously-then you are unclean and probably shouldn't touch anyone;

Remember you need to have a man to be your guardian if you want to go anywhere. Men! so useful you shouldn't leave home without one;

Remember to take another female if you have to go to court, this so she can remind you in case you get confused-of course a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man because they are so likely to get confused;

Be happy that you only inherit a half of your brothers share when your parent dies;

Probably best not to tell anyone if you get raped unless you have four witnesses;

Be glad that your husband is mandated to beat some sense into you if you annoy him. How wise is Islam;

Remember not to marry a non muslim (men can of course) and rejoice that you and three other ladies can share marriage with your man. Of course you can't have 3 husbands though.

How feminist is all this? Maybe the definition of feminism has changed a bit recently.

Unknown said...

Its an awesome response Mr.David wood. I love the the way you respond, Not like telling something as some others do, You respond with numbered points, and verses with the numbers and interpretations. Now a days I miss your debates. Can you add the recent debates here or give the links for that

ignatius said...

David, just a quick question.

"The Kipster" is driving a wedge into your Christian readership at a time when we should be presenting a united front against Islamists.

Do you know if he is a plant from the other side, a trouble-maker, or a merely a blithering idiot?

Unknown said...

[The Kipster]"Sadly this woman has traded one lie for another as her previous affiliation was Roman Catholic and now she worships another false god."

I am reminded of
Voice of the Martyrs. Nov 2013. "The New Road to Damasus"
The civil war in Syria is serving to strengthen the Church and tear down denominational barriers. Christian groups that five years ago might have questioned each other's salvation are now gathering for weekly prayer, asking God to move in their nation and in their churches.

[The Kipster]"If she would only have the proper authority and not rely on the teachings of men (the Catechism and the Quran), she could have truth."

Do you think there's _any_ truth in:
the Roman Catholic Catechism?
the Quran?

John 17
17. Abba [Father], qudsh [sanctify] them by your Truth,
for your Word is Shrara [Truth].
18. As you have sent me into the ailma [world],
I also have sent them into the ailma.
19. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, so that
they may also be sanctified by Shrara.
[re: their sakes: literally 'their faces']

Unknown said...

[ignatius]"Mohammed was a fraud. Some of his book is merely self-serving"

Such as this curse against Muhammad's uncle who rejected Islam:

Arberry translation
111:1 Perish the hands of Abu Lahab,
and perish he!
His wealth avails him not,
neither what he has earned;
he shall roast at a flaming fire
and his wife, the carrier of the firewood,
upon her neck a rope of palm-fibre.

Some additional self-serving statements:

after 33:50
O believers, enter not the houses of the Prophet, except leave is given you for a meal, without watching for its hour. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have had the meal, disperse, neither lingering for idle talk; that is hurtful to the Prophet….
It is not for you to hurt God's Messenger, neither to marry his wives after him, ever; surely that would be, in God's sight, a monstrous thing.
….God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace. Those who hurt God and His Messenger — them God has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement.

Joseph Smith created Mormonism, and
Muhammad created Islam.
Smith claimed that God approved of men having numerous wives.
Muhammad claimed that God approved of men having numerous wives.

After 4 wives wasn't enough for Muhammad, Muhammad alleged that God approved Muhammad having over 10 wives.

SG said...

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for GUARDIANS; they are GUARDIANS of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a GUARDIAN, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. "

Her reinterpretation makes it sound actually worse for any Muslims living under non-Islamic governments. The only way out of it is another reinterpretation of guardians to mean... foster or adoptive parents? That doesn't sound right either.

Tom said...

@Radical Moderate

great post, please let us know if she does post it on her blog!

@ David Wood
Outstanding work,
"The Lord's Blessings continue to shine on you and your lovely family".

WhatsUpDoc said...

I think you are going to get a lot of mistranslations from her. LOL

Unknown said...

This needs to be CNN headline..

MeccaisBabylon said...

Theo Padnos, an American Journalist who was a prisoner in Syria for two years wrote of his harrowing experience in the NYTIMES recently.

Here is the link:

Germane to the discussion was a quote from his Nusra Front captors who regularly beat him in prison.

'Eventually, one of the more educated guards explained to me that as a Christian and an American, I was his enemy. Islam compelled him to hate me.

Anyway, the Quran forbade amicable relations: “O you who believe!” this guard would recite. “Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them.”'

David Wood is simply correct and the young lady is wrong. The members of the Nusra Front know the Quran inside out. They are following it to the letter. I pray that the price of her error is not her soul.

Unknown said...

Dear David,
You have not made it onto CAIRs list of Islamophobic individuals.

Don't take your omission personally I'm sure it's just an oversight. Keep up the good work I'm sure you'll make it one day.

Unknown said...

I feel I need to make it clear that making the list would be a badge of honour. I just realised my post could seem critical if read a certain way.

Damn comment box keeps underlining words that are spelt correctly. You should change to UK spellings! There's a reason the language is called ENGLISH ha ha

Unknown said...

In order to Ben Shapiro's statistical support by Muslim population around the world to proof that majority Muslims support for Islamic terrorism for fear of Qur’anic teaching to obey Allah’s command for Jihad. All barbaric killings in Islamic states justify that statement.

If majority Muslims are peace loving, why could they not control terrorism committed by the name of their Allah-hu-akbar in their own country? Does it not prove that majority Muslims favored to obey their Allah’s command in Quran to fight for Islam by killing Muslim and non-Muslims? Innocent Muslim killings are considered as collateral damages.

A typical example is Pakistan, almost 100% Muslims where terrorism is daily incidents that killed thousands of innocent people. Last incident was on November 1, 2014 when more than 100 people were killed at Pakistan India border. If so called moderate Muslims were majority in Pakistan why do they not control small terrorist groups? It proves majority Muslims support Islamic terrorism to keep alive Islam in the world.

When collateral damage sadly happen in killing terrorists by drone attack, all Muslims protest for innocent killing but no one protest when terrorist Muslims kill non-Muslims. Why??

AgainstPC said...

Your refutation about the alleged mistranslation of verse 5:51. Do you speak Arabic David ?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...



'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'