In my previous two posts on Mohammed Hijab, I marveled in his impressive speaking skill. He’s one of the best speakers that I’ve ever seen. If I were to look at all of the Christian and Muslim apologists on the planet and find the best speaker among all of them, I would give it to Mohammed Hijab. This is what makes him dangerous.
Mohammed Hijab didn’t bring much substance to the debate. He dodged most of David Wood’s points against Tawheed and had really bad arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. If you go to Muslim websites or social media, Muslims are all claiming that Hijab won the debate. Obviously it is not due to substance but due to his elite oration skills.
Look at the above clip and his response to how Christianity spread. Not only was what Hijab said completely false, but for the vast majority of things that he said, the opposite is true. My favorite thing in this response was how he describes Islam spreading. He contrasts the spread of Christianity according to his bogus pseudo-historical reasoning with the spread of Islam which was spread “organically”. I honestly don’t know what that means. How did Islam spread organically? If one of my readers or even Mohammed Hijab himself can answer me, I’d be grateful.
Falsehood is always spread by powerful orators. I’ve read a lot about the early Church and apparently this is what gave Arius his influence. He wasn’t overly coherent in his arguments but apparently he could charm people with his singing. He spread his heresy through song. I actually thought about this during the Wood vs. Hijab debate when Hijab spontaneously started chanting the Quran. Another song of Arius perhaps?
Heresy cannot win on Scripture, history, or substance so it must gain ground via other means. James White likes to talk about how Wycliffe should have started the so called reformation instead of Luther but it “wasn’t time”. That never made sense to me because if Church hierarchy is spreading heresy, it’s absolutely the time to challenge them and have a “reformation” or revolution. Wycliffe couldn’t get anywhere because he never had the skills to communicate his heresies. He had the platform but obviously he couldn’t get any further than his little Lollard movement.
Mohammed Hijab said several times during the debate that the reason he was acting disrespectful was because of who his was debating and if he was debating another person like James White or William Lane Craig, he would show respect. Honestly, I’d hate to see William Lane Craig debate this man because he takes the absolutely wrong approach. James White doesn’t seem to be able to debate Muslims anymore as seen by his debates with Zakir Hussain and Adnan Rashid. Who should challenge Hijab next? I don’t know.
Whoever it is, it won’t be easy. Mohammed Hijab will most likely dodge your questions, attack straw men and randomly start chanting the Quran as if he’s bursting into song in a Broadway musical. In addition to this, you’ll have to face his elite oration skills that no other Christian or Muslim possesses. That’s why this man is dangerous. Watch the above video. Utter falsity and the Muslims in the audience cheer him on like it was Obama on the campaign trail in 2008.
Mohammad Hijab’s “powerful oration skills” is in the showmanship that comes with it – like the late Ahmed Deedat.
He did not have much content, of what I have seen so far. (I have seen a lot of clips exposing his errors and some of the full debate but I am still trying to find time to listen to the whole thing.)
He made a lot of mistakes about Hebrew pronouns, and other things.
He said something like, “Nicean Christianity of the 381 Council of Constantinople is the Trinity with 3 co-equal, co-eternal independent persons”
Where did he get the word “independent” ? That is wrong. They are co-equal and co-eternal but not independent of each other.
James White doesn’t seem to be able to debate Muslims anymore as seen by his debates with Zakir Hussain and Adnan Rashid.
What are talking about here? James White did an excellent job against them, and several times. That does not make sense.
He’s a nice enough guy. It’s just knowledge is power. Anyone with a brain is dangerous in today’s world. Stop spreading hate. He spreads a reasoning argument.
Haters will hate because the truth that is spoken contradicts the lies they live.
Peace and prosperity to all💖
It’s not fair to tell he won cuz He had some skills
He has lots of knowledge man, and people who have had a debate with him can tell that to you even better
There’s no doubt that he knows something, but maybe we could have a thing about is he really know enough or has to know more for such debates!
Cuzing Mohammed hijab to lose face not the best way to tell the word man
Respect🙏🖤
Salty asss Christians as usual when they get destroyed they resort to online comments get out of here mate if u are so smart why don’t u challenge him and I know u won’t cuz you people are just internet warriors 🤣🤣🤣
My favorite thing in this response was how he describes Islam spreading. He contrasts the spread of Christianity according to his bogus pseudo-historical reasoning with the spread of Islam which was spread “organically”. I honestly don’t know what that means. How did Islam spread organically?
It is fancy way of avoiding all the initial conquering by Jihad / Qatal (killing, slaying, fighting to the death) until either the pagans surrender to Islam and the Christians and Jews surrender to no longer resisting Islam as the external government of an area.
I think by “organically”, he means after Islam conquers an area by force, then after that many eventually convert (because of economic and social pressure of the Dhimmi system, which he won’t tell you in a debate this this.)
Islam came to a rather ignorant Arab people – who were quite deprived of morality. Islam improved their internal condition, and then helped unite many a wandering nomads and tribes under a single banner of Islam. So far so good?
Is it rational to throw the word ‘jihad’ in there to justify a group defending itself against oppression? I mean you have literally NO clue about what the early years of Islam were like. I’m MORE than happy to talk to you and explain. How can it be that under the reign of Umar R.A, the 2nd caliphate that non-muslims flourished? That non-muslims governed their respective areas despite being part of the Islamic ’empire’.
Please tell me any empire that did NOT spread due to war of some sort? How many times did the Prophet pbuh actually secure proper treaties? What happened once Muslims conquered Mecca? Did they come in and shed blood? The Prophet came in behind in the army with his head leaned down almost touching the back of the animal – in the utmost humility, spared everyone, and was commanded by Allah to establish the remembrance of God (like counting rosary beads).
You just ‘want’ to believe that Islam is evil but if I get 15 min to talk to you you will have little negative to say. 🙂 Drop me an email and lets chat. odetoazam@gmail.com
Falsehood is always spread by powerful orators. I’ve read a lot about the early Church and apparently this is what gave Arius his influence. He wasn’t overly coherent in his arguments but apparently he could charm people with his singing. He spread his heresy through song.
That is a good point.
Hi Ken,
Happy Sunday. You make some good points here. I never thought about the independent thing. Perhaps he’s trying to differentiate it from modalism? I don’t know. It was rhetoric which is Hijab’s strong point. Maybe he knew that Wood couldn’t respond so he set up this straw man.
Regarding White, I don’t think he’s the debater he used to be against Muslims. In the Rashid and Hussain debate he couldn’t answer Psalm 91. I don’t think he’s keeping up to the evolving world of Muslim apologetics. They’re trying new things and White is still set up to combat apologists of the Sami Zaatari and Osama Abdullah era.
I don’t know if that’s what organically means. I’m still trying to think about it. It’s a squishy word that can mean a number of things. Obviously it’s meant to be a positive term. I’ve noticed that people try to impugn others with what they’re guilty of. Rabbi Tovia Singer is probably the worst for this but Muslim apologists do it well.
God bless,
Allan
“Who should challenge Hijab next? I don’t know.”
I would nominate someone with the Arabic knowledge of Christian Prince (but his English skills and oration need much more polishing first).
And the historical knowledge of Jay Smith – I honestly believe his claim that Shabir Ally and everyone else refuses to debate him on the historical basis of Islam, because I don’t see any such debates anywhere!
On offense, the Quran & Hadith knowledge of Sam Shamoun and the Jihad history of Robert Spencer.
On defense/rebuttal, the Old Testament knowledge of Anthony Rogers.
Michael Brown’s Hebrew / OT and James White’s Greek / NT knowledge would come in handy, but IMHO totally fly over the heads of most of the Muslim opponents/audience. Arguments need to be tailored to the level of the recipient.
Ideally we just take all the above and get them to prep David Wood, then unleash Wood’s primal psychopathic-condition state to go full-polemic on the opponent!
I would also like to contribute several out-of-the-box ideas to any of the above for a future debate with Muslims.
“Ideally we just take all the above and get them to prep David Wood, then unleash Wood’s primal psychopathic-condition state to go full-polemic on the opponent!”
Bad form! You should retract that comment.
Too late, the Internet never forgets
Hmm
Valid points, but if you watch more of his videos, such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7Ak2oqNtQk
You will see that he’s quite respectful and focused. He is a young guy – not even a doctor yet. I feel that we as a public are more enamored with the structure of the debate than the actual knowledge being acquired as a result of watching it. If we are really interested in Tawhid vs Trinity, perhaps the 2 debaters would be wise to construct their arguments on Tawhid as a separate session and then on the Trinity. The problem lies in the organization of the debate.
Apart from that I agree that perhaps Hijab had plenty of errors in his analyses.. but that’s OK. How long does it take to correct those errors? It will take him time to become the skilled debater he aspires to be. There’s no doubt he already possesses the skill of Zakir Naik when it comes to recollection and has a command over language – none of which David Wood seems to have. Watching David Wood speak is like watching a sedated Trump drool all over himself. I can’t honestly say I learned ‘anything’ from David Wood, except that his arguments against Islam are banter. “Surah Mulk interceding” somehow giving Quran some kind of divine status. Then perhaps the Arsh (throne) of Allah also has divine status? In any case – i find Hijab to be quite respectful. I don’t know much about Woods or the other guys but I’ll continue watching some of their videos.
Occam Razor.
Hello Azam,
“Watching David Wood speak is like watching a sedated Trump drool all over himself.”
I’ll concede that it wasn’t his best debate but I think he did okay.
“I can’t honestly say I learned ‘anything’ from David Wood, except that his arguments against Islam are banter.”
So none of the arguments that Wood presented against Tawheed were new to you?
” i find Hijab to be quite respectful. I don’t know much about Woods or the other guys but I’ll continue watching some of their videos.”
Here’s the thing. During this debate Hijab was not respectful. He may be elsewhere but not here. Wood was respectful in the debate. One can make the argument that his Islamicize Me documentary was disrespectful and I’d understand that. However, if this is a debate and the Muslim moderator tells you to stay on topic multiple times, then that’s a problem.
Here’s what Hijab was talking about when he gave the reasons for being the way he was.
“Surah Mulk interceding” somehow giving Quran some kind of divine status.”- according to orthodox Sunni Islam the Quran is eternal, uncreated, part of Allah’s nature, but at the same time not identical to Allah. If you reject these beliefs, you’re not even considered a Muslim. This alone poses serious troubles for someone insisting that Islam is Unitarian religion. Adding the hadiths that portray the Quran (or even certain parts of it) as a conscious talking being only makes things worse for Muslims.
May God help us all.
David Wood did what he really needed to do:
1) Show Western audiences that true Islam is not the calm, logical debating of Shabir Ally – it is the rowdy, insulting, mindlessly clapping mob of M. Hijab.
2) Expose the Muslim audience to Islamic weirdness such as Allah having body parts, the Quran being sentient and taking human form, Allah praying (not TO Muhammad, but FOR Muhammad… but why does a deity even pray, and to whom does he pray for aid?).
If you know anything about David Wood’s methods, you’ll know that many Muslims have left Islam after learning about the real teachings of Islam that their imams and Youtubers do not want them to know about.
Now they don’t just have his videos and Islamicize Me! to learn from, they have this debate.
David Wood is far worse than Mohammed Hijab if you watch any of his videos. As he said in his debate, he watched many of his videos few days before the debate and probably got upset by the foul mouth of David Wood. He is a diagnosed psychopath and killed his own father. This shows how little he cares about anyone. I was so happy that someone finally did to Woods what he has done to many Muslims over the years.
Cite me what ‘foulmouth’ things David Wood said.
I’ve listened to countless of his debates, presentations, livestreams and even Islamicize Me – he says things which Muslims don’t like to hear, but I have never heard him cuss or swear in them.
And please don’t use the tired old “There are sooooo many examples that it’s pointless to cite any of them!” excuse.
Except when he quotes the horrid things that come out of the mouth of the prophet of Islam and his followers, like the very blunt Arabic terms for female genitals.
Sorry to disappointed you, but! David wood make up things about Islam and explain things the way he want without even looking at the context.
All i see in his videos is hate preach!
Soufiane,
Could you give us examples of where David Wood makes things up please? In my experience he unfailingly uses reliable Islamic sources, so if what you say is true, then we need to know the details.
Christopher
Christian Prince?
Have you heard of the Arabian Prophet or Christian Price? He won’t let anything dodge by so easily…
I sure have. He’s awesome!
Reading this it amazes me how much stupid you guys are really, this is so easy that even answering his for a person who claims to know about islam is like an insult you should be ashamed
You are writing lie after lie to the degree that I cant begin to say where you are wrong. Mohammed is not doing anything wrong, and he certainly articulated all the right answers to David’s questions and all the audience’s questions, and especially the question in the video made by one of the audience. Where is the mistake he made? Did david answer the four questions truly? Do you think David provided sound substance about Islam?
So you are inviting us to undertake a Do-It-Yourself exercise in determining what your objections are?
Just like Trump, he uses aggresive language. intimidation and all sorts of pranks, and people ALLOW HIM TO GET AWAY IT IT. Shame on you for allowing Europe to fall pray to such aggressors.
Someone’s jealous of Islam’s beauty… please, you make us cringe, sir!
What is beautiful about lies?
What is beautiful about calling for people to be put to death?
What is beautiful about passing on myths and tales of the ancients as truths?
What is so beautiful about Islam that someone who leaves the religion should be killed?
Tell me that.
Compare that with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The truth and the message of the love of God is waiting for you in that.
I am not someone who likes to sugar coat things or over look genuine observations, Mohammad Hijab definitely could have done a better job… I have no problem him insulting David wood though, no man can bear listening to the insults this man has hurled towards their Prophet… You never hear Muslims insult Jesus AS directly, we always say church or paul… As a matter of fact if a Muslim were to say something so foul as david wood about Mohammad SAW, the Muslims would be the first to condemn him because Jesus AS is a revered Prophet in Islam, we always ad ALEIH SALAM or Salutations be upon him at the end of his name to show respect, and people like David wood wear their wife’s dress and shoot a video claiming Mohammad SAW used to be a cross dresser (while cross dressing himself infeont of the camera) and even accusing Mohammad SAW of disgusting sexual acts and not producing ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL when Muslims demanded… Personal attacks on someone are the weakest and most desperate approach to prove your point and shows you couldn’t falsify their teachings with logic and reasoning… So if Hijaab wanted to get even with him infront of the camera, for all he had been doing for years to his Prophet SAW, I’d say he had every right to do so…
And even though I think he could have done a better job at addressing his questions, I’d say he did a good enough job if not an excellent one… He definitely made his points clear in reply to him, but his showman ship was not focused on delivering the answers as much as I would have liked… But the points were definitely there, like when David wood twisted the words of Hadith to say chapters of Quran will become birds on the day of judgment, Mohammad Hijaab replied that its not the chapters but the reading of the chapters… Now he could have went on further to clarify that in islam there is evidence over and over again of good or bad deeds taking the form of a living being, hence READING of Quran is also a good deed and will appear in the form of flocks of birds… But rather he just mentioned the point and moved on saying don’t waste my time with this, just giving the point according to me is not enough, THE POINT NEEDS TO BE STRESSED, already Christians are in a habit of taking things out of context be it their own bible or Quran or the speech of a scholar…
The problem for Muslims is that David Wood makes observations about Mohammed based upon Islamic sources, he doesn’t make things up. If you are a Muslim then the problem is yours to sort out – good luck with that. If Islam is true you should not find it difficult. If you object to David Wood’s statements then you need to counter them with arguments of your own…..based on Islamic sources, if you wish to be consistent. But you cannot do it without undertaking mental gymnastics.
If Islam is true it should not be a problem to do this by means of logic and reason.
With regard to Jesus, sure you do not criticise Jesus but of course you cannot criticise Jesus based on your Islamic sources (not that the Koran says very much about him). Even Mohammed’s lying tongue did not give scope for that in the Koran that he gave to his credulous followers – God’s power is too great for that – Mohammed could not overcome it with his lies. In contrast, anyone can criticise Mohammed based on Islam’s own scriptures because Mohammed was too stupid to avoid this. For instance Mohammed claimed to his followers that the Koran (the supposed words of God) states that semen is produced between the backbone and the ribs – this is untrue; that the sun sets in a muddy pool – this is untrue; that Christians worship Mary the Mother of Jesus as part of the Trinity – we do not; that no one was named John before John the Baptist (Quran 19:7) – this is untrue.
Devotion to Islam is not enough to make it true. Western culture and Western thought dominates the modern world because, rightly, Reason and Logic are powerful tools in the search for Truth. Time and time again Islam is found wanting in the test of reason, logic and truth – because it is false. Because Mohammed was a liar.
People like David Wood don’t point these things out to make you feel bad, it is so that you can realise that Mohammed and your Imams have been lying to you about God. The Truth lies in Jesus Christ and what he taught us when he was on earth – the Truth is there in the gospel that was given to us.
Remember this, Jesus had a miraculous birth (Mohammed did not have a miraculous birth), Jesus was sinless (Mohammed was a sinner), Jesus performed miracles (Mohammed performed no miracles). Jesus died asking that God the Father forgave the people (the Jews) who condemned him (Mohammed’s last words called for the expulsion of Jews from Arabia). Jesus Christ is the only one worth following.
It is Christmas Day, when we celebrate that Jesus Christ was born to us, and dwelt among us and taught us the Good News that God loves us and wishes the best for mankind. The truth about Jesus is not to be found in the Koran, but in the gospel, in the teachings of his disciples. I urge you to honour him by learing about what he said and did in the gospel.
I was surprised to notice in that debate David could not confidently answer about old testament killing order by God, I expected him to give the answer as God is sovereign, He deals with evil the way He wants, Does God not know that children are innocent, of course He knew, my view if let the children grow, they grow up to be more evil, so He had to wipe them out completely, Thank God arrival of Christ according to Gods plan in His own time changed by bringing more grace, I don’t think God was happy about any killing but man always used his free will to rebel against the holy God, instead of asking why God is not ordering any killing now, we must thank God for his mercy and grace.
All islamic scholars say, this is what Quran says, we believe it’s true , you why they don’t argue, A muslim is the one who surrenderd to Islam, therefore you cannot question, and go on trying to defend with mental gymnastics and illogical reasoning, however any muslim who dares to question always finds the truth and responds appropriately
You just can’t take back your defeat, he is a wonderful guy you can’t deny it, blame David for not defending his religion lol
This isn’t an argument. If you have evidence of your claim then present them.
I appreciate Muhammad Hijab for the discussion with Yasir Qadi on Ahruf, Qiraat, and the Uthmanic recension May 8, 2020. He deserve applaud form all of us to bring out the truth of Islam and interest of Muslim world for law on Apostasy and Blasphemy. Once these are removed from eastern world Islam will collapse like a house of cards