Has Shabir Ally Been Exposed? Information About His PhD and His Apology Behind the Scenes?

Wow. Talk about delusion. For those confused, this is not an attack on Shabir Ally…just highlighting the type of delusion that’s out there on the net from the Christian camp. See my blog for a mix of humour, news and apologetics:


Truth About tongue Sucking of Hassan and Hussein

Explaining the Tongue-Sucking Hadith

It appears Islamophobic rabble-rousers on the internet have been distorting the reason behind Prophet Muhammad allowing his grandchildren (Hassan and Husayn, ra) to suck his tongue. [1]Sadly, these folk have very little research behind them and even less desire for the truth. They have twisted these actions of genuine devotion and concern for these boys to reflect their debauched minds by accusing the Prophet of homosexuality.

What is the actual reason behind the tongue-sucking?

The answer lies in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad. The reason behind the tongue-sucking was to quench their thirst and help settle them down. We must remember this was an arid environment (desert) where water was scarce, thus loving parents/guardians did go to such lengths in caring for children:

He gave al-Hasan and al-Husayn his tongue to suck. They had been weeping from thirst and upon this they became quiet. [2]

This was a genuine act of devotion; had Jesus (p), Gandi, Guru Nanak or Mother Theresa carried out such an act of devotion to children they would have been praised for it. Sadly, this is not the case for Prophet Muhammad (p) as malicious folk on the internet have dark agendas they are pursuing assiduously.

Outrageous Islamophobic spin on a genuine act of devotion!

Islamophobes who present Ahadith (narrations) of such a nature in order to promote the idea of homosexuality or child abuse should desist immediately as their spin amounts to nothing more than a fallacious and fanciful attempt at character assassination.

May Allah guide these people. Ameen.

Muslims and Non-Muslims should be alert…

If a hater does present a claim where this occurred between the Prophet (p) and his grandchildren or his daughter (Fatima) please realise there is nothing untoward and the action was a genuine act of devotion that any caring person would undertake for the betterment of the infants. Do not be swayed by such hollow and outrageous distortions.

We must also remember homosexuality is forbidden and sinful in Islam. [3]

The Prophet’s saliva

The Prophet even used to spit in the mouths of suckling children in order to satisfy them until nightfall [4]. Further examples of the blessings within the Prophet’s saliva are given in footnotes [5], [6].
MUSLIM refutes the homosexual allegation alleged at Prophet Jesus (p)

Christian hater’s immature cross-dressing allegation is refuted

Become a Muslim today

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com


[1] A couple of narrations Islamophobes erroneously “use” in their efforts to degrade and dehumanize the Prophet (p) and Islam:

Bukhari, 1183. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, “I never sae al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa’. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, ‘Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.’ Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'” [Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari by Imam BukhariTranslated by: Ustadha Aisha Bewley] From – http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx

Musnad Ahmed Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: “The Sayings of the Syrians,” Chapter Title: “Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan”: “I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

[2] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004 pg 184

[3] Imam Dhahabi’s list of enormities (sins), p17.0 he writes, “…There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of other religions that sodomy is an enormity…” [From the list of enormities presented in Nuh Hamim Keller’s translation of Umdat as Salik, Amana Publications, 2008, p17.0 (page 644)]

[4] He used to spit into the mouths of suckling children and his saliva would satisfy them until nightfall [page 184 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]

[5] He spat in a well that was in Anas’ house and there was no water in Madina sweeter than it – Al Bayhaqi [from page 183 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]

[6] This narration is unclear as to whether the blessings were within the saliva of the Prophet (p) or not but it is of benefit to mention:
In the hadith of Hanash ibn Uqayl we find, “The Messenger of Allah would give me a drink of sawiq (a kind of mash). He would drink first and I would drink last. I always found that it filled me up when I was hungry and quenched me when I was thirsty and was cool when I was parched”
[from page 184 in Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]

Islam: Fact Vs.Fiction – Acts 17 Lying again.

More Islamophobic LIES from “Christian Missionaries” [by Acts 17 David Wood]

Just when you thought “Christian” Fundamentalists were learning to be a tad more honest…

Right, we have already seen an overview of the history of Christian missionary dishonesty concerning Islam so it comes as no surprise to see some modern day “Christian ministries” peddling lies about Muslims.

The lies geared towards converting Muslims to Christianity are one thing but lies which have the potential to demonize Muslims and set Christians (and others) against Muslims endanger communities – especially Muslim minorities in the West.

Here we see an internet Christian ministry (David Wood of Acts 17) peddling the lie that Muslims are commanded to torture and kill Christians who FIX CHURCH ROOFS or WEAR CROSSES!!!

Now, the reasonable amongst you would pass this bloke off as misinformed at the very least – if not completely off his rocker. So why publicize this man’s lies? There are a number of reasons, here are three:

1. There are gullible folk out there who would believe such divisive lies simply because they trust “Christian evangelists” or are insincere in that they really want to believe such deceptions. This reinforces hatred and stereotypes, thus further endangering Muslims minorities

2. We need to make an example of Islamophobes – if they are peddling lies it is always nice to expose them as it makes other Islamophobes think twice – we help to nudge them to honesty and decency!

3. Lies can confuse folk so there needs to be a mopping up process.

“Christian” Missionary (David Wood) presented dangerous lies

If the video does not play, please visit:
Video is made by the “infamous” Yahya Snow 🙂

Obvious LIES and Distortions

The Quranic Verse the Islamophobe speaks about (5:33 – see footnote 1) has nothing to do with church roofs or wearing crosses. This is an OBVIOUS LIE presented by Mr Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics.

The Verse was revealed concerning a group of people who had committed the heinous crime of murder and theft – severe highway robbery [2]

Commentaries are quoted in the comment section

This “missionary” is exposed in more ways than one

Not only do the commentaries tell us this chap is lying through his back teeth but also Islamic jurisprudence tells a similar story as it uses this Verse (5:33) as a guide to punish those who commit the crime of highway robbery [3]

Jurists may also use this verse as a guide with regards to punishing other serious crimes such as rape at gun or knife point [4]

Leaky roofs? More like leaky vessels of honesty!

I hope you can see we are talking about serious crimes which have the potential to cause fear and panic amongst communities. We are not talking about fixing leaky roofs – the missionary was simply advancing LIES!!!

So the experts (the commentators and jurists) show us this fella is telling tall tales – that’s to say he is making stuff up. How sad

As we have seen in the video, Muslim societal norms also show this dishonest man to be misleading us. [5]

The Holy Spirit

Christian evangelists claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within yet time and time again we see Christian evangelists embroiled in such outrageous episodes of misinformation such as the one above.

How do you seriously expect Muslims and other Non-Christians to believe you when your missionaries engage in lies? In this case the lies were Islamophobic and contained the potential to lead misguided folk to harass Muslim minorities in the West. Perhaps that was the design for the lie, I don’t know – ask the man who peddled the lie!

I call him to public apology and repentance

Christians PLEASE stop supporting the disingenuous and dishonest “Christian ministries”

May Allah guide us all. Ameen.

Muslims are the brothers/sisters of Jesus

Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Discover Islam today!

Helping to nudge insincere folk amongst evangelist communities to honesty

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom
[Pikthal translation 5:33]

[2] Ref Commentaries: Al Wahidi, Jalalayn, Ibn Kahir, ibn Abbas. (See comment section)

[3] See Shafi fiqh, Reliance of the Traveller, read entire o15 section (Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications)
[4] See Sheikh Al-Munajjid’s material on the punishment for rape – the relevant excerpt is quoted in this article – follow the link to see the entire body of work:

[5] Not only that but Muslim societal norms militate against this man’s nonsense. In fact Muslims have even had the Pope visit wearing a CROSS – nobody tortured him. In the video I could have also shown further Muslim societal evidence. Mentioning the كنيسة القديس الياس دمشق, Saint Elias Church (Damascus-Syria) was sufficient as it was built in 1800 and has been twice renovated since but no tortured Christians could be found!

Jizia Discussed – Samar Gorial, Moustafa Zayed, Robert Spencer

Imam Moustafa Zayed Answers Samar Gorial on ABN Sat – Jizya

As an individual who investigates Christian outreaches to Muslims I can honestly say the outrage which I have witnessed from Samar Gorial’s colleagues and those who support the enterprise is even more debauched than Robert Morey’s fabrication of Ahadith literature.Samar Gorial was devoid of any sound understanding of Jizyah as her primary teachers are agenda driven – an agenda which is demonization of Muslims. Thank God Muslims are on hand to clear away the bag of tricks, gags and heckles her colleagues of used for obfuscation purposes.

Why did Samar Gorial not know this?

[blip.tv http://blip.tv/play/AYKW90cA%5D

Advice to sincere folk and Samar Gorial

If you want to learn about Islam please do not take the circus act that is the “ABN apologist” as an authority. Erm, one of them makes up his own Quran translation to convince us bestiality is Islamic, the other one peddles sex hoaxes and claims Muslims will chop off your limbs if you fix a church roof, another claims anal sex is Islamic, others claim to be ex terrorists even though nobody of Google-searching ability believes them. I need not go on – I think you get the picture. [For those interested further in these debauched characters then please search this blog or email me]

Robert Spencer Vs Imam Moustafa Zayed – Part 2

Robert Spencer was sniggering like a schoolboy whilst Sheikh Zayed was clearing up after the circus act.
Spencer has no reason to snigger. He has just been kicked across 400 pages by Sheikh Moustafa. I have the book and confirm this. Spencer and his pals should be ashamed as they allowed the lady to fall into obvious error.

Just like his book response, imam Zayed was shown to have more class and substance than Robert Spencer.

Robert Spencer would do well to look into “The lies about Muhammad – How you were deceived into Islamophobia”. I guess his arrogance and desire for repute and cash will prevent him; however, I could be wrong.

Paying Jizya is Biblical – Submission to Governing Authorities

Sadly Christians continue to throw their Bible under the bus and dispose every ounce of consistency whilst attacking a perfectly reasonable aspect of Islam. There is NOTHING wrong with Jizya – both Biblically and Islamically! We have already discussed this issue via a previous blog post and one by Jonathon (TGV19). For those who are interested further you can view the following pages:

Basics on Jizya

The Bible: Christians should pay Jizya tax and other taxes

PS I have quoted the entire “Submission to Governing Authorities section (Romans 13) in the comment section so the more discerning can check for context.

Now, that’s the way to do it – honesty. Sadly, honesty is found wanting when Islamophobes take the stage.

Invitation to Islam

Would you like to learn about Islam? Ever wanted to learn the truth about Jesus and Muhammad (pbut)? Would you like a relationship with God? If yes:


ABN Sat employee – Mormon + Russian women scandal
Walid Shoebat – Even the right have exposed him as a liar
ABN Sat – Sex hoax purveyor
Muslims are brother/sisters of Jesus

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Dr Robert M Price Vs Dr James White – Debate Review

Ex Fundamentalist Christian Reviews the Debate

An entertaining review, it contains an allegation of dishonesty (discussed further below)


Was James White dishonest?

I don’t believe White can be accused of outright dishonesty. I guess it was a misdirection which will be passed off as a “debate tactic” no doubt. However, it is intellectually dishonest as it dismisses Price’s thesis in a sneaky fashion WITHOUT interacting with his argumentation. White, if he wants to indulge in serious scholarship should try and interact with the INTERNAL arguments Price has put forward to prop his claim. Just a suggestion…

Obvious! But WLC has responded..

Did Price base his article upon internal factors? Yes, he eve mentions he does not have manuscript evidence to support his thesis. . It is of interest to apologetics to note William Lane Craig has interacted on the issue – Dr Craig did not resort to such misdirection – as far as I am aware.

White: A history of debate blunder

If the reviewer was so annoyed at White’s little misdirection he can certainly empathise with Muslims who were aggrieved with James White’s two-fold shoddy scholarship. In a debate with Shabir Ally, White cites a non-existent “narration”. Still to this day I have not seen White give an explanation as to where this “narration” came from though some Muslims have found it came from a dubious Christian missionary tome. Yep, those missionaries do make stuff up – just have a look at pg 193 from Dr Robert Morey’s Islamic Invasion

The second is extremely worrying, in a debate with Sheikh Awal, White presented a claim of “Allah repenting in the Quran”. This was nonsense and he was soon denounced for such a nonsensical claim and even accused of LYING. It turned out; in his defence he cited a shoddy missionary website run by his friend as support!

Sadly, White to this day maintains he is correct and ALL the translators of the Quran are incorrect (his pal’s translation has also been shown to be grammatically incorrect in itself). By the way, his friend is notorious for amking up translations – he was caught making one such up whilst trying to convince his fellow “Bible believing” Christians that Islam “allows sec with animals!

Folks this is not scholarship; this is school boy stuff. This is a reason why debates should never be your primary station of learning. I feel sorry for the “Bible believing” Christians who swallow such fundamentalist fudging.

See here for more information with regards to the blunders:


Did James White “lie” in the Greg Stafford debate?

The reviewer makes such a claim. I have contacted him to explain such a statement. Of course we cannot accuse White of lying based on the reviewer’s say so. Perhaps those of his followers could help stimulate him into clarification…

Debates and buying/selling debates

A whole host of debate tactics (including dishonesty) and telescoping (due to time restraints) can result in serious truth seekers being misled.

James White is a career debater/apologist, thus he seems to be debating every fortnight and putting such up for sale on his site. Muslims should not be buying such material unless they are involved in serious apologetics – that means having GROUNDING in Islam first.

In my view Muslim “debaters” should NOT imitate White. How many times can one debate the same topic? Ultimately you end up making a mockery out of faith – nowadays debates are entertainment and the lay are drawn by the clash of individuals rather than the debate topic.

Debate topics, White and the rest

The reviewer accuses White of having a propensity to veer off topic in debates. Surely it is disrespectful to the audience to do so especially if they have spent some cash in purchasing the debate. I am on the cheap side so…

To be fair many debaters do the same.

Cash for ministries

The reviewer touches upon giving cash to James.

OK, I understand White seeking financial assistance but the “Christian” rabble rousers who cling onto him have no business asking for cash. Why it is “Christian” apologists on the internet think they have a God given right for finances from the “Christian” lay. I have never understood that – especially so with the “Christian” outreaches to Muslims which are full of lie, hoax and outrage. Come on, how those in White’s crew can seriously expect payment for such hate-filled nonsense as “Islam allows sex with animals”.

Really, is this “scholarship” worthy of “financial assistance”? Here is one presenting his “research” to his donors:

Christians, please think CRITICALLY

As Robert Price teaches do your OWN critical reading and don’t rely on what this person or that person is saying. Also, watch out for the misleading half-truths and blatant lies “Christian” apologists present to you. Apart from the in-your-face- type lies we expose on this blog the Christian apologist claim of having x number of manuscripts as though this somehow confirms the reliability of the document is beyond reprehensible. It, amongst other things, militates against the “God breathed” claim our Christian friends append to the Bible.

Prior to Tischendorf’s 1859 find the “Bible believing” Christians would have felt secure in reading the last chunk in Mark 16, enough said. Christians, think critically.

A quick thought on the appearance to the “more than 500”

You would imagine there to be numerous individual accounts recording such an appearance? Surely they would have told their respective stories INDIVIDUALLY and recordings made. After all, it would be deemed something to write home about, right?

Notes of interest from Robert Price’s theorizing

Walker’s (conspiracy) theory of standardization of the Pauline corpus to meet the then orthodox views is all very interesting but does away with any idea of a pre-third century manuscript existing – thus there will NEVER be MS evidence substantiating interpolation within any epistle. It puts White’s misdirection into shame – one can further understand the reviewer’s grievance!

All Price has to work with; “aporias, contradictions, stylistic irregularities, anachronisms, redactional seams”. The notion that Paul could have been a Gnostic is useful interest – perhaps further exploration is required here.

Robert Price begins talking our language with “uncertainty”. He has a point, why close off the options at two (authentic/inauthentic) – there is room for Price’s third!

Price’s big one

This, in my view is Price’s biggy, concerning 15:3: “”received / delivered” (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition” and THUS this contradicts 1 Galatians 1:11-12 (Paul is claiming he was not taught it and nor did he receive it from any man).

E.L. Allen cites the obvious problem; that is of the story of the (more than) 500 not being registered in the gospel narratives? Internal suspicions are cranked up further.

The appearance to James the Just (1 Corinthians 15:7) is deemed problematic. “John (7:5) and Mark (3:21, 31-35), followed by Matthew (12:46-50), are clear that he was no friend of the ministry of Jesus”. The issue here is if James was an unbeliever then surely a conversion narrative would have been appended. To be fair Luke (Luke 8:19-21; Acts 1:14), does imply the whole family were believers.

I find it interesting Wisse seems to be warning against Price-type theorizing and citing the stability of scholarship as a reason to shun it. Interesting.

“I believe the prima facie likelihood is that many interpolations occurred in those early days”


Invitation to Islam

Do you know Muslims believe in Jesus as a Prophet? Muslims also believe the Bible has been changed. Learn Islam for yourself rather than relying on some fundamentalist “Christian” bigot to teach you a load of hate-filled twaddle about Islam. Good site to get your feet wet:

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Acts 17 Apologetics UnChristian Attention Seeking (ABC)

Acts 17 Apologetics’ Blasphemy: Women Equality in Islam (ABC)

Recently we admonished Acts 17 Apologetics’ Negeen Mayel for her inconsistent attack on Lauren Booth’s conversion to Islam and now we must admonish another member of Acts 17 (David Wood) as this member has been found to be using an inconsistent standard in order to attack Islam on the issue of women’s rights

Are women equal to men in Islamic theology? Yes!

Before proceeding it is important to clarify gender equality within religious context. Both Christianity and Islam differentiate between man and woman but this differentiation does not impact on the idea of man and woman being equal in the eyes of Islam.

In Islam the standard of judgement is Taqwa (piety) and both male and female are judged by this standard; neither of them has an advantage over the other. A good deed performed by a male is EQUAL to that performed by a woman (and vice versa).

O mankind! Lo! We have created you from male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware. [Pikthal’s English translation of Quran, 49:13]

Western modernism Vs Christianity and Islam

Neither Muslim nor Christian will disagree with the standard of piety being the yardstick for judgement as BOTH Christianity and Islam presents men and women having different roles BUT these differing roles do not affect the idea of religious equality.

ABC’s Islam Deception–Part Three: Are Men and Women Equal in Islam? By David Wood

We shall feature and discuss David Wood’s video but before discussing the contents of the video we shall remind people Irshad Manji is a progressive and does not represent Muslims and nor does she have any Islamic authority; in short she is shunned by Muslims and the ABC would do well to bring in scholarly authority when discussing Muslim matters (our recommendation are Sheikh Yasir Qahdi or Sheikh Hamza Yusuf) rather than Irshad Manji.

Acts 17 Apologetics throw the Bible under the bus

The question here is; why would David Wood (a “Christian” evangelist) be using modern secularist standards to attack Islam when the SAME standards could be used to attack the Bible (EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVELY)?

The answer my friends, according to my opinion; David Wood (Acts 17 Apologetics) is not the most “Christian” of individuals and demonising Islam is high on his agenda in an attempt to get into people’s eye line; yes he is seeking attention – even if that attention comes by throwing the Bible under the bus!

David Wood talks polygamy and women

Here his basic premise is; Islam allows men to have more sexual partners than women (Muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife whilst Muslim women are limited to one husband)

This moves us onto the issue of biological clocks and the natural mindset of each gender. The respective nature of men and women is indeed different. Can David Wood name us some women who would like more than one husband? He would not be able to as naturally women are more inclined to one partner whilst the male is more inclined (naturally) to spread his seed. Perhaps this is one of the factors behind men being the more promiscuous out of the two genders and perhaps this is one of the reasons why true Christians have NO problem with polygamous figures in the Old Testament. We shall further discuss true Christian views on polygamy later on in this paper.

David Wood’s inconsistency is indirect blasphemy (in “Bible believing Christian” circles)

The Bible ALLOWS polygamy for the man (polygyny) but it is NOT allowed for women. In fact, if David Wood is consistent he will be yanking verses from the Bible, condemning the god of the Bible as well as rejecting Moses, Solomon and ABRAHAM.

The Bible supports polygamy

Let’s be clear the Bible allows polygamy and great Biblical figures had polygamous relations (without censure):

“If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. (Exodus 21:10)

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons… (Deuteronomy 21:15)

Many of you will know Abraham had more than one partner but you maybe unaware of Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). So if “Christian” Islamophobes want to bash Islam they will have to rip pages out of their Bible and criticise the god (according to Christians this god is the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) of the Bible as polygamy is ALLOWED according to the Bible. Hypocrisy is uncannily common amongst the “Christian” Islamophobes!

Yes, David Wood will have to criticise Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit as well as Abraham in order to remain consistent!

Sex with slave women is Biblical as well as Islamic

Abraham, according to the Bible, had relations with concubines which yielded sons. The relevant verse in the Bible is Genesis 25:6:

But while he [Abraham] was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines

So obviously sex with slave women was ALLOWED. Solomon had 300 concubines as well thus further showing the positive legal status of having concubines (slave girls) according to the BIBLE!!!

Rehoboam had MANY wives and CONCUBINES (and subsequently many sons):

…For he had taken eighteen wives and sixty concubines and fathered twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. [2 Chronicles 11:21)

As Muslims (just like true “Bible believing Christians) we do not have an issue with Muslim men being able to have relations with slave women. Quite why the “Christians” at Acts 17 Apologetics have an issue with relations with slave women is beyond me as the Bible had NO issue with it and Biblical figures had concubines. Islamophobia does strange things to people!!!

I do want to reiterate the non-current nature of men having slave girls in current times as slavery is very much abolished [k32.0, pages 458-9 Reliance of the Traveller]

Be consistent David!!

Better than Abraham?

Is David Wood better than Abraham? No. Sadly, our David Wood uses secular feminism as his standard? Why the inconsistent standard? Because David uses anything he can lay hold of in order to demonise Islam and Muslims.

Sex with captives Vs Killing captives

Yes Muslims are allowed to have consensual sex with slave girls and captives; the marriages of female captives are annulled [o9.13 Reliance of the Traveller]. The issue of slavery is no longer current as slavery is not in force anymore [Reliance of the Traveller pages 458-9]

So Islam allows sex with slave women but what about the standard our David Wood should have used in order to maintain consistency? The Bible allows sex with concubines (slave women); we have already seen Abraham had relations with his concubines

The god of the Bible (for David Wood this includes the Holy Spirit, the Father and Jesus) allowed the KILLING of captives who were non-virgins:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man (Numbers 31:17)

So this “Christian”, if he is going to be consistent, will have to criticise Abraham, Moses, the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus BEFORE he comes knocking on the door of the Muslim if he wants to maintain consistency!

Why throw the Bible under the bus?

Secular humanist sticks to bash the Bible?

As Muslims, if God did order such then we accept it and we do not criticise based on modern-secular humanist views. Our David Wood is throwing his Bible under the bus in favour of bashing Muslims with secular-humanist sticks – sticks which could be used to bash the Bible (by humanists) with GREATER FORCE!!!

David, be consistent rather than a desperate Islamophobe who throws the bible under the traffic!!!

“Surah 4:34 is a good place to start” (beating women Vs killing women)

Negeen Mayel used Surah 4:34 (inconsistently) to attack Islam. This is discussed and explained here whilst Negeen Mayel (another Christian) is taken to task for INCONSISTENCY:

Seen as David Wood uses the same argument we do not need to add much in the way of refutation but we will remind Mr Wood to be consistent

Men in charge of women in the BIBLE!!!

Yes, the Bible teaches men are in charge of women but our David Wood is Biblically unaware thus his ignorance leads to his inconsistency and indirect condemnation of the Bible.

David Wood takes umbrage with men being in charge (Surah 4:34) BUT the Bible teaches the SAME thing (see 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Ephesians 5:22-24)

David wake up from this desperate Islamophobia as it is making you look foolish and unchristian!!!

David Wood on sexual positions

Yes, David Wood is talking sex again. This time he goes to the Jalalayn commentary of Surah 2:223 and he seems to be revelling in it whilst reading it. He forgets to mention this Verse was sent down as a result of a Jewish misconception which claimed the children yielded from such a sexual position (from behind) were born squint-eyed [see Balugh al Maram Hadith 873].

The Quranic Verse makes clear this position is not a sin and Islam done away with the Jewish misconception. I do want to state anal sex is prohibited in Islam [footnote 1 in Bulugh al Maram pg 327, also see hadith 867 and 868 on the same page). One of David Wood’s colleagues (IQ al Rasooli) is infamous for claiming Islam allows anal sex!

Sex positions according to the Bible?

Firstly, in Islam, sex is a two-way relationship so wives do have a say in the way it is conducted as her enjoyment should be considered too. [More information on Islamic marital relations can be found here: http://www.zawaj.com/articles/intimate.html%5D

Men are in charge of women and women must obey them according to the BIBLE. If David used the same standard then he will have to claim men get to have sex with their wives in any position they fancy ACCORDING to the BIBLE.

In fact this argument can be used more vociferously, so David the next time you want to talk sex positions please open up your Bible (if you are consistent) rather than throwing it under the bus.

Who is in charge? The man (according to 1 Corinthians 11:3):

“…and the head of the woman is man…”

Does David Wood want to impose sexual thoughts on this verse? If so, then I would ask him to read Ephesians 5:22-24 as wives must submit to their husbands in everything. Yes the word EVERYTHING is used.

wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (NIV)

So who is allowed to have sex in any sexual position they want? The Christian husband!

So why all the fuss, David? Why the inconsistency, David?

Nota Bene

I just want to state; I am NOT insulting Christians or the Bible here. I am making a point of consistency. With all due respect, I have no interest in what the Bible teaches with regards to sexual positions. In my faith (Islam) marital relations are a mutual thing between man and wife so we have no concerns in this regard.

Muslims are proud of their faith whilst the Islamophobic “Christian” (David Wood) throws his religion under the bus to bash Muslims. Desperately Sad!

Muslim women competing for attention in Paradise?

David Wood goes on to claim Muslim women are not equal in Heaven either. His premise is sex (AGAIN!!). He claims (due to Muslim men having houris) Muslim women will have to compete for the affection of their husbands in Paradise. This is a load of nonsense as it is well known Paradise is a place where there is NO rancour or enmity so Muslim women will not be jealous and EVERYBODY in Paradise will be happy. Muslim women will have what their hearts desire thus they shall have their husband’s affection. (See Surat az-Zukhruf: 71, Surat al-Hijr, 47 and Surat al-Insan, 20 for a further understanding of the blissful nature we speak of with regards to Paradise)

The ultimate bliss in Paradise is the closeness to our Creator but our David Wood chooses to focus on a sexual misdirection.

As William Montgomery Watt taught; those who attack Islam with sexually charged critiques say more about themselves than about Islam.

David Wood follows Negeen Mayel (and wastes our time)

David Wood quotes the same tradition with regards to the Prophet seeing Hell (more women were present). This has ALREADY been explained to Negeen Mayel as she used the same tradition to bash Islam. Please see here for the explanation and the inconsistency therein (it also discusses the “common sense issue” and the “lacking in religion issue”):

Women are “defective” according to St Thomas Aquinas

Women as defective?

Our David Wood would do well to look at the EXPLANATION of the “common sense” issue (see the article addressing Negeen Mayel) and look into the words of Thomas Aquinas before making such claims:

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power….” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.

Care to explain, David…

Two female witnesses?

As David Wood went into further detail with regards to the “intelligence” or “common sense” issue we shall also append an answer from Dr Zakir Naik on the issue of female witnesses, see here:

David Wood: regurgitation galore

David is no pioneer; he is simply regurgitating the same tired, oft-refuted and inconsistent (and unbiblical) argumentations other Islamophobes spout.

Our David finishes off with his “Islam allows sex with prepubescent girls” canard. Thankfully he did not bother to expand upon it. If he had then this shuddering article would have been brought into play:

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi educates us all

As Sheikh Yasir Qahdi points out this issue (womens’ rights in Islam) is current due to the secular feminist movement in the West (in recent years). I know this lecture is one hour long but it is the BEST material on the subject and cuts through standard responses and presents an overarching view on the subject – essentially it debunks “the male bias myth” outright. A debunking ALL(fair) religious people will be able to appreciate. See here:


Those who understand religion will never claim Islam considers females as lesser beings. Our (Muslim) standard is piety and females have as much right as a man to excel in this all-important regard. Here is a list of women NO man on the planet could ever claim to be better than: Aisha, Khadija, Fatima, Mary (mother of Jesus), Sarah, Hagar, Zipporah (wife of Moses). I could go on and on but I shall not; we all get the picture.

I just hope Islamophobes (such as David Wood) get the picture and try to be more academic and consistent by dropping this silly charade of secular sensationalism.

Become a Muslim today:


FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com