It appears as though David Wood has taken umbrage to my rebuke and concern regarding his recent unchristian behaviour which can be viewed here:
Recently David Wood accused me of hypocrisy and perversion…yes, PERVERSION!!!
My initial comment to him was:
An absolute misrepresentation of my blog posting
Clearly my rebuke left a bee in David's bonnet.
David attempting a deflection is not the way...you should have just admitted your unchristian behaviour and left aside any dents to your ego after I ( a Muslim) rebuked you
Note...Christians even agree with me on this.
I'm not sure if I will dignify this with a response.
However as Christians (yet again) are unwilling to point out the validity of my rebuke and the concern regarding his “obnoxious” behaviour it is timely to make a few further points of rebuke and refutation as well as ask Christians (including Wood) to self-reflect based on the initial message.
His accusation of hypocrisy is because I objected to his unchristian behaviour and did not rebuking the Muslims who threatened the south park (according to Wood’s partial information)
For David’s information I actually sent a comment of rebuke to the Muslims who threatened the South Park duo
Is that hypocrisy…no…it is consistency. Rebuking both parties in error…Wood and the RevolutionMuslim team
Moreover it is a valid expectation to rebuke somebody you know rather than somebody you don’t…I don’t know the Muslims who threatened the South Park team BUT I and my associates still rebuked them.
The rebuke concerning David’s unchristian behaviour was firmer and more visible because I know David, I’ve had dialogue with him in the past and I know his colleagues and associates…some of them rather well. Surely you spend more time rebuking somebody within your circle of associates…and that is why my rebuke of David Wood was carried out.
It makes sense…right?
David doesn’t get it though
David, in a feeble attempt to deflect and detract attention away from his unchristian behaviour goes on a rampage and attacks one of his own…myself!
It is not the way, David.
Now it gets worse as David accuses me of perversion for some convoluted reason based entirely on semantics. I felt this was childish on the part of David
David utilizes his fertile imagination, dishonesty and a childish nature to have semantics oriented dig at me.
He claims I was complaining about pornography on his blog BUT my audio presentation nor the official blog posting contains the word “pornography”…so David is either lying or going to surplus sites where the title of the posting has been changed
If he stuck to the actual material itself then he would realise the word “pornography” is not even used but he gets mileage out of it so he does not care either way.
He produces a convoluted insult against me based on this straw man. But the point still stands…in the material the word “pornography” is not used to describe the nudity David show cases on his blog…this is a classic deflection based on intellectual dishonesty by David
Nevertheless the intellectual dishonesty continues as he builds his immature semantics-based attack on me. He goes to put forward definitions of the word “pornography” and he selectively chose the one which teaches the word to mean something which sexually entices. He then rather school-boyishly proceeds to accuse me of a perversion, astonishing!
It is absolutely astonishing to note an adult would sink to such depraved levels of manipulation… effectively that is all it was.
But embarrassingly for David, he could not even be honest with the definition of the word “pornography”. He withheld the full definition as the word can also mean “lurid” and “sensational”…why did David hide this from his audience?…why did David hide the full definition of the word and manipulate the meaning to pursue his personal agenda to save face? Why even focus attention on a word not even in the content material? Dishonesty and potential to manipulate?
Did his post contain lurid material? Yes!
Wood tries to pass it off as art…OK David, show it to the church congregation this Sunday at your local church…you won’t because you know it is unchristian material
Art or no art. It is still unchristian!
In fact this is a secularist (atheist) response…passing immorality off as art in order to get under the radar…David, are you a secularist now? Will we be seeing gay church leaders at your church any time soon…of course not!
Last one; David if liberals pass of insults to the Holy Spirit as art would you claim it is fine and feature it on your blog…I don’t think so…so why feature material which is unchristian (nudity) and explain it away by “art” when you are pressed on it. Be consistent David…it seems as though the word “hypocrisy” is being highlighted here.
David also commits the fallacy of false equivocation as he claims my objection to the SP based on offense can be projected onto the Arab pagans who had their idols destroyed by the Prophet Muhammed (p)
OK.. So does David want to be consistent and apply the same reasoning against Jesus for his (physical) attack on the money changers? Were the money changers not also offended?
In addition what about the individuals Moses and his army killed? What about Abraham breaking an idol? Well, individuals defending these Prophets would simply remark they had a mandate from God.
So if Jesus, Abraham and Moses had permission from God to behave in the way they did then why not apply the same reasoning to the instance of Muhammed destroying the idols?
Who are we to argue with God?
Nevertheless, the question backfires at Wood as he has showcased material featuring nudity on his blog…did God give him permission to do this?…Of course not!
At the accusation of not having concern forth victims of Muslim aggression:
My friend (Minoria, a Christian) answers well…”I believe our friend Yahya is against those atrocities but perhaps thinks commenting on them would do no good”
Certainly, commenting on these atrocities on Wood’s blog simply results in a bunch of Christian haters hounding me and this cheapens the severity of the hurt and pain the victims are going through.
It is also of use to add that David Wood’s trawling of the internet in order to find and upload negative stories about Muslims seems insincere as he only seems to showcase them to have a dig at Muslims and Islam rather than any genuine concern for the victims…surely if he had a sense of a Samaritan and had genuine concern he would also be show casing the hurt Christian clergy have cause thousands of individuals through the abuse scandal. It must be said; reasonable individuals are viewing David Wood as somebody who panders to hate rather than an individual who has genuine concern.
I think David knows in his heart of hearts that his behaviour has been out of line…this is inferred from David’s attempt to censor my invitation to his partner (Nabeel Qureshi) to review his material and rebuke him if it is unchristian…if David was fully convinced his material and behaviour was fully sanctioned by Christianity then he would have had no reason to censor an invitation of inspection and review
It is sad that David Wood’s ego blinds him from self-reflection and rebuke. I would ask him to ponder upon Matthew 23:12
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (NIV)
If you have any questions about this posting then please email me