Friday, November 9, 2018


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
In this debate with David Wood yesterday, Mohammed Hijab gives an ugly example of what are all too common tactics employed by Muslim debaters. This debate is an unpleasant experience to watch, because Hijab’s arrogance, contempt, and hatred are on full, open, unapologetic display, to the utter glee of the mostly Muslim audience, which twice erupts into “Allahu akbars.” Many Muslim spokesmen have directed the same arrogance, contempt, and hatred toward me on numerous occasions, and this is because Muhammad himself, the prophet of Islam, directed his followers to deal with unbelievers in this way. Consider these hadiths (thanks to Sam Shamoun), one of which David Wood refers to right at the end of the debate:
Ubayy b. Ka’b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, and do not use a euphemism.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV — General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021)
Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” — al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship — “Would we flee and leave him?” (The History of al-Tabari — The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76)
And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to ‘Urwah: “Suck Al-Lat’s clitoris!” — there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: “Bite your father’s penis!”[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma’ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)
There is a great deal more that is illustrative in this debate. Note also that Mohammed Hijab, while repeatedly berating David Wood for supposedly mocking Muslims, which he never actually has done, invokes James White as a model Christian debater worthy of respect. There is one primary reason for this: White has allowed Muslim Brotherhood-linked imam Yasir Qadhi to spread lies without challenge — White is just the sort of Useful Idiot that Islamic debaters want to face if they want to score an easy victory. Hijab’s blustering and posturing was all designed to intimidate David and put him on the defensive; intimidation is a beloved tactic of Islamic spokesmen. Hijab’s liberal use of it was actually a implied admission that he had no arguments. If he were to meet White in debate, he might be friendlier, but he wouldn’t be any more receptive to White’s arguments than he was to Wood’s.
Hijab also eats up minute after minute of his allotted time thumping his chest, declaring victory, and proclaiming Wood’s ignorance, instead of actually demonstrating it by responding substantively to his arguments. This, too, is an extremely common Islamic debating tactic; I ran into it most memorably in my debate with Mubin Shaikh, a man for whom the phrase “a legend in his own mind” was coined. It plays well to the audience, which, of course, doesn’t have the slightest idea about the minutiae of this debate, that is, what Tertullian or Origen may or may not have said or meant, but who were roused by Hijab’s empty braggadocio to hearty takbirs.
As for the actual substance, Hijab didn’t have much. He repeatedly challenged Wood to produce a pre-Nicene Church Father whose Christology was the same as that of Nicaea. David ably explained why this request was irrelevant, but in any case, here’s one. It took me about 30 seconds to find:
“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abideth ever.” — Gregory Thaumaturgus, “A Declaration of Faith,” from 275AD