“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner; surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way.” (Holy Qur’an 16:125)
“Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are stern against the unbelievers, merciful among themselves.” (Holy Qur’an 48:29)
“Allah does not forbid you from being kind and just with those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes. Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Holy Qur’an 60:8)
First of all I would like to congratulate Mohamed Hijab in this debate with David Wood. Over all I think that Mohamed Hijab had a very powerful delivery, was very quick to answer David Woods low level polemic and was right in the forceful manner in which he dealt with David Wood.
Some people (many Muslims) may have been taken aback by Mohamed Hijab in the way that he dealt with David Wood. However, David Wood and his ilk have been berating Muslims and anything to do with Islam and Muslims for over 20 + years.
Shabir Ally is not the kind of person who should be debating David Wood. Why?
Because Dr. Shabir Ally is filled with restraint, kindness, charitable and has impeccable character.
Mohamed Hijab however, has been molded in the fires of Hyde Park. David Wood is not an academic nor presents anything in an academic manner. David Wood likes to wallow in the mire and the muck and Mohamed Hijab is willing to go to that level (and that’s actually a good thing in this case.)
Mohamed Hijab is quite tall, he’s an imposing figure, he allowed his voice to carry and his forceful manner had David Wood cowed. Dr. Shabir Ally is best at debating James White, William Lane Craig (and Christians who carry themselves with at least a modicum of decency.)
With people like David Wood you cannot come across as too subdued or soft because people like him only understand strength.
So insh’Allah I will do my best to give a partial analysis on the David Wood /Mohamed Hijab debate. Though I feel that Mohamed Hijab’s performance was over all dominate and he was the clear victor of this debate -by a long mile.
This can be evident in comment sections by Christians (who also like to wallow in the mud) that they should have debated: “Who was Jesus Who was Muhammed”.
This is because they feel more confident about David Wood’s ability to character assassinate the Blessed Messenger (saw) for 1-2 hours than in his ability to defend anything that remotely resembles Christian doctrine.
Here is the debate and my analysis of it:
The debate doesn’t actually start until 15 minutes:
First thing about the moderators/moderation of this debate.
It deserves a big fat F-. The moderating of this debate was absolutely horrible.
The cross fire section was constantly prefaced by speech before we got to any real questions. The questions from the audience was poorly handled. Someone should have been out there holding mics. Many in the audience gave speeches and didn’t ask direct questions.
So to the moderators may Allah (swt) bless your efforts but in a debate like this emotions will run high and you need to have strong moderators.
Mohamed Hijab’s opening statement: is at 15:00 minutes into the video.
Mohamed Hijab argues that Paul believed in Subordinationism. (Which David Wood did not address during the entire debate).
Augustine changed the order of John 17:3 as he was troubled by its implications. (David Wood did not address this during the entire debate).
Mohamed Hijab brought up Luke 9:25 where Son of Man, Father and angels are used together and no one opines any concept or various concepts of trinities. (Which David Wood did not address during the entire debate).
At 27:00 minutes Mohamed Hijab makes a forceful argument about the ambiguous nature of the Holy Spirit and for 300 years no mention of him having the status as spelled out in latter various Trinitarian creedal formulas.
For 300 years no early church father makes the statement that the Holy Spirit is co equal, co eternal with the father and son. (Which David Wood did not address during the entire debate).
In his opening closing statement Mohamed Hijab makes an attack on social trinitarianism (Which David Wood did not address during the entire debate).
If Trinity is implicit in the “Old Testament” how is it that for 4000 years Jewish learned scholars did not see this. (David Wood did attempt to address this).
Mohamed Hijab concluded with quoting from Holy Qur’an 23:91
“Allah has never had ˹any˺ offspring, nor is there any god besides Him. Otherwise, each god would have taken away what he created, and they would have tried to dominate one another. Glorified is Allah above what they claim!” (David Wood did not interact with this at all during the entire debate).
David Wood opening statement at 35:05
David Wood opens his statement with a jab and an attempt of being witty.
David Wood follows up with an excellent point that Mohamed Hijab did not even give us the definition of Tawhid or even talk much about it during his opening.
David Wood argues for the particular Trinity that he believes in.
David Wood does a great job of explaining at least from his position on why they believe in the Trinity. He does this by laying out proof text in the Old Testament that advances the idea of God being a plurality. (Mohamed Hijab did not interact with the majority of these proof text during the entire debate).
David than moves into the New Testament proof text equating Jesus with deity, or divine essence. (Mohamed Hijab did not interact with the majority of these proof text during the entire debate).
However , David Wood like Mohamed Hijab (who did not give a definition of Tawhid) did not give a definition of the particular Trinity that he believes in.
At 44:00 minute mark David Wood begins his critique of one of the many Islamic concepts of the Divine. I believe this time he is focusing his critique on the Athari/Salafi denomination of Islam and their concept of the divine as his opponent Mohamed Hijab is of the Athari/Salafi denomination.
To his credit David Wood’s first problem is the issue of Allah (swt) praying.
This is in Holy Qur’an 33:56
You may see various disparate translations here:
Of particular interest of those translations was T.B Irving and also ‘The Monotheist Group’ -Qur’an Only Muslims that totally reject the oral traditions.
Personally I felt that though Mohamed Hijab interacted with this he didn’t answer it and at one time actually deflected the question away.
David Wood’s second argument was great as well, especially considering that Mohamed Hijab is of the Athari/Salafi denomination of Islam.
The idea that everything will perish except Allah’s “face”.
“And call not, besides Allah, on another god. There is no god but He. Everything (that exists) will perish except His own Face. To Him belongs the Command, and to Him will you all be brought back.” (Holy Qur’an 28:88)
You may also see here how various Muslim denominations and their various theological leanings have tried to render this verse into English.
At 46:00 minutes I think David Wood tripped up when he said “literally not simply anthropomorphically” which I feel he may have made a gaff here because that is exactly what literally would be -comparing the divine to the human. Now most Muslims including Ashari/Maturdidi tend to either misunderstand or misrepresent what the Athari/Salafi position is.
The Athari/Salafi position is to accept these attributes of Allah, hand, face, shin, eyes, foot etc by the apparent meaning without ascribing any metaphorical interpretation while at the same time upholding that there is nothing like unto Allah (swt) and all of this is accepted in a way that befits the majesty of Allah (swt).
Even though I personally agree with the Ashari/Maturdidi approach to these attributes, I have seen way too many Ashari in their prosecution of the Athari/Salafi position themselves compare these attributes to the creation. It seems in their mind if something says hand, foot, face, than it absolutely must mean literal or else. This seems like lazy thinking and poor logic.
Anyway I digress. It is a great argument by David Wood and I feel that Mohamed Hijab didn’t have an adequate response to it. (Insh’Allah will see latter). David Wood’s perishable vs imperishable argument is good in a debate with a Muslim from the Athari/Salafi denomination.
46:44 David Wood makes a historical fallacious argument regarding the Qur’an being eternal. He argues that this is ‘orthodox islam’. How or why he drew this conclusion has never been explained in any work of his. It would be like Muslims arguing that that the Catholic Church is ‘orthodox Christianity’, which I am not sure David Wood would attest to.
As the Sunni Muslim denomination of Islam believe that the Qur’an is eternal, and thus an attribute of Allah, David Wood makes the argument that the Qur’an as an attribute of Allah will be interceding with Allah himself. (Mohamed Hijab had an excellent response to this.)
David Wood says the Qur’an is multipersonal. I feel these were very weak and spacious arguments.
David Wood cites the verse in the Qur’an talking about the ‘Mother of the Book’ or Um Al Kattab -so David Wood wryly ask “Who is the Qur’ans daddy?” It is these kind of questions that are classic David Wood and are not meant to be serious. They are put out there simply to be goofball statements; usually with the aim to stir up the Muslim audience.
David Wood talks about the Spirit of Allah as being some part of Allah. (Mohamed Hijab had an excellent response to this.)
David Wood argues that Muslims deify the Blessed Messenger (saw). By rubbing his spit on their faces, drinking his blood etc. These are indeed in traditional Islamic sources. (Mohamed Hijab had an excellent response to this) There was also an important point brought up by a sister during the Q & A session.
Muslims say “Peace be to you Oh Prophet” in their prayers. (Mohamed Hijab had an excellent response tot his.)
Mohamed Hijab 12 minute rebuttal starts at 56:18
Mohamed Hijab has some strong answers to David Wood’s points about the “Old Testament” and quickly deals with the whole of it by casting aspersions on the authenticity of the New Testament as a whole.
Mohamed Hijab quickly moves to David Woods attacks upon the Athari/Salafi theological position.
Mohamed Hijab responds to David Wood’s first point about Allah praying. However notice that Mohamed Hijab DID NOT address David Wood’s point about Allah praying. All that Mohamed Hijab did was show (and correctly) that the verse says that Allah prays FOR the Prophet not TO the Prophet. Yet, it didn’t answer the issue of Allah praying.
It leads to some questions. Who or what is Allah (swt) praying to?
Why would Allah (swt) need to pray at all?
Mohamed Hijab corrected David Wood in that no Muslim scholars say that we take Allah’s attributes literally. Which is correct. The Athari/Salalfi position is that the hands, foot, shin, face, eyes of Allah are not to be understood in an anthropomorphic manner, because of the verse “There is nothing like unto him.”
20 years of studying Islam and this was an epic fail by David Wood.
I didn’t find Mohamed Hijab’s response to “Everything will perish” except his face to be adequate or satisfying.
Mohamed Hijab argues that “kullu” everything doesn’t necessarily mean all. O.k fair enough it doesn’t mean all so than which parts don’t get destroyed? What is special about the face attribute that it gets singled out in such a way?
I think personally that those Muslims who hold to the Athari/Salafi position on not making tasbih of the attributes will always struggle with questions like this.
Mohamed Hijab has an excellent response to David Wood about the Qur’an being an intercessor and it is due to David Wood’s misreading/misunderstanding (intentional or not) about the ahadith in question.
It is our reading our act of it being a charitable deed, a meritorious act that will intercede for us on the day of judgement. Beautiful response!
Mohamed Hijab also gave an excellent response to David Wood’s attack upon the Qur’an saying that the sonship of Jesus is only understood in a biological sense.
Mohamed Hijab says this can only be understood, by biology, adoption or metaphor.
It was as if the Qur’an was baiting Christian theologians with this verse. Interesting!
If Christians say Jesus isn’t the son of God by biology or adoption than it must mean a metaphor and therefore Jesus is not the son of God.
That was an excellent come back.
Mohamed Hijab had an excellent barb for David Wood and his ilk by saying something along the lines of: “Look if you think spitting on someone makes them a God than no wonder, your standards are quite low, little wonder you could accept Jesus as being divine.”
Mohamed Hijab as salamu ‘alayka (the narrative voice) another excellent response to David Wood. The angels carry our greetings to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
Beautiful recitation of the Holy Qur’an by Mohamed Hijab. How often do you see any Muslims do this in debates? Well done.
David Wood 12 minute rebuttal: Begins at 108:56
David Wood begins again with the idea of Allah praying. He is not willing to let Mohamed Hijab go on this point.
David Wood at this point I feel is grasping at straws. He is trying to argue again for his points but is quite visible and apparent that he understand Mohamed Hijab has gotten the best of him at this point.
David Wood is not letting go of his point on the Qur’an incarnating into birds and interceding with Allah (swt) on the day of judgement. He claims that this cannot be construed as pure monotheism.
David Wood seems to miss the argument the Holy Qur’an is making about Allah (swt) not having a son. Notice David Wood does not tell us in what sense do Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. Again, is it biologically, adoption, metaphorical.
David Wood brings a new argument (one that Christian polemics have used again and again). That is that the Qur’an mistakenly tries to identify their particular understanding of a particular Trinity. Mohamed Hijab has an excellent response to that as well.
David Wood did not want to let the point go about drinking the blood of the Prophet (saw), or rubbing his saliva on their faces. These are certainly excesses and shows the over bounding love that the companions had for the Blessed Messenger (saw).
In fact during Q & A session: A person mentioned from the books of history that when the Blessed Messenger (saw) died Abu Bakr Sadiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “If any of you worship Muhammed let him know that Muhammed is dead and if any of you worship Allah let him know that Allah is alive and cannot die.”
Now this is interesting because it could be that Abu Bakr Sadiq witnessed excess on behalf of the companions, it could be to remind them that the whole focal point of the Blessed Messenger (saw) and his mission was to bring people to worship Allah (swt) alone.
It could be that their love for the Blessed Messenger (saw) was so much that it bordered on worship but stopped just short of worship.
“Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that you have gained; the commerce in which you fear a decline: or the dwellings in which you delight – are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious.” (Holy Qur’an 9:24)
Mohamed Hijab 8 minute rebuttal: Begins at 121:00 mark.
Mohamed Hijab goes straight to the point about Allah praying.
Mohamed Hijab that the good deeds come in a good form and responds to the idea that intercession is polytheism. The Holy Qur’an itself says, “who will interceded except by Allah’s permission.” (Holy Qur’an 2:55)
Mohamed Hijab mentions that “Umm’ in Arabic doesn’t always mean ‘mother’ in a literal sense thus destroying David Wood’s earlier come back. Mohamed Hijab cites several cases/examples of this from the Qur’an.
Mohamed Hijab explains etymologically that the word ‘salah’ comes from the word ‘silaah’ -which means connection. Salaah- means du’a.
Mohamed Hijab has an excellent response to the Qur’an supposedly getting David Woods concept of a particular Trinity of many wrong.
Mohamed Hijabs view on the verse “do not say three” is exactly the view that I have and my understanding as well. That it is all comprehensive and it covers all the types of trinities that all Christians have ever adhered to. Think about it which one of their Trinitarian creeds or formulas can they utter without saying ‘three’ ?
At 1:25:00 Mohamed Hijab makes a good point that 2 hours into this debate David Wood has not addressed none of the four points that Mohamed Hijab has brought forth.
4000 years and the Jewish scholars did not infer any concept of any type of Trinity from the Tanach or “Old Testament” , 300 years of Christian history and no early Church father espoused the view of the Nicene version of a Trinity.
At 1:27:00 Mohamed Hijab has explained why he comes off as so strong against David Wood (and I 100% agree with Mohamed Hijab’s demeanor in this debate) AND I think it is a sign of character and respect and love for the Blessed Messenger (saw) that Mohamed Hijab did not shake hands with David Wood.
How can anyone shake hands with a man who has said the vile things that David Wood has against the Blessed Messenger (saw)? So Mohamed Hijab is a person of principle and character and I stand by that.
However, Mohamed Hijab assures us that if he was debating Dr. James White or Dr. William Lane Craig it would be a different story.
At 1:27:28 FINALLY the moderator makes his presence known. I think that Mohamed Hijab did not have to show David Wood any courtesy at all. However, it is true he spent to much time on David Wood as a person and it was great that the moderator FINALLY made his presence known.
Mohamed Hijab gives charity to David Wood by offering to cede 1 1/2 minute of his time to David Wood.
David Wood 8 minute rebuttal: Begins at 128:00 mark.
David Wood finally gets to the four questions that Mohamed Hijab point forward.
I feel David Wood does a poor job in trying to respond to the absolute dearth of Rabbinical scholars for 4000 years who do not opine on any type of trinitarian formula in the TNCH or “Old Testament”.
Who knows what he was trying to prove by quoting Deuteronomy 6:4 and the mention of God three times. It honestly comes across as very desperate.
David Wood fails even by using his progressive revelation concept to explain why 4000 years and no Rabbinical scholars opine a doctrine of any type of trinity, and we have to wait until 400 years after Jesus, to receive the Nicene version of the Trinity.
1:35:34 Damning admission by David Wood that the early Christians didn’t have the language or terminology to describe this concept. That was some an opening that Mohamed Hijab could have capitalized on in a big way -but didn’t.
1:37:32 This is where David Wood and ALL Christians should be putting their focus on in future debates with us. I don’t know why people like David Wood use low level polemic when you could have having some real dialogue and debates and asking very challenging questions of your Muslim opponents.
For example David Wood starts talk about how Muslims believe Allah is one in essence, and yet one in attributes as well. This is a very important debate and distinction among us as Muslims over this. Yet, Christians have failed time and time again to capitalize on this.
David Wood’s comparing/contrasting persons/attributes seemed promising by that line of argument fizzled out no longer than he brought it up. Very unfortunate.
1:38:09 CROSS FIRE of the Debate
Question from Mohamed Hijab to David Wood: “Which Church Father with in the first 300 years said the Holy Spirit was co-equal and co-eternal with the Father?”
David Wood response: If Tertullian called the Holy Spirit God what more do you need.
Question from David Wood to Mohamed Hijab: How should the word ‘salah’ be translated and why are Muslim translators translating the word ‘salaah’ as pray. Why is it saying that Allah prays?
Mohamed Hijab response: Muslims and linguist say that the word means blessings. The Qur’an doesn’t tell you to pray to the Prophet Muhammed (saw) , only God is worthy of worship. Yet this is not the argument that David Wood is making.
Mohamed Hijab question to David Wood: In Mark 13:32 why does the Holy Spirit not known when the hour is?
David Wood response: David Wood clearly feeling uncomfortable with the question does some deflection back at Muslims, and than interestingly enough makes a subordinationist argument!
1:45:25 David Wood finally gets around to explaining absolutely priceless.
“THERE IS A LONG EXPLANATION WHICH I AM NOT EVEN SURE IS CORRECT.” -David Wood. This was the debate right here. David Wood is done.
After that he tries to insert information about the Kenosis-which relates to Jesus not the Holy Spirit and than again a quick deflection back to the Qur’an and Islam.
“”THERE IS A LONG EXPLANATION WHICH I AM NOT EVEN SURE IS CORRECT.” -David Wood. Wow! Well done Mohamed Hijab!
David Wood: Doesn’t ask a question but makes an assertion (bad moderation again and they should have interjected). David Wood is doing rebuttal when he should be asking a question.
Nonetheless he says that Jews during the 2nd Century A.D wouldn’t fault the various Trinitarian models that Christians came up with. He cites Benjamin D Sommer’s writings. http://www.jtsa.edu/benjamin-d-sommer
Mohamed Hijab finally interrupts (and rightly so) and ask “Is this a question.”
Which is what I am also wondering. It sounds like a speech and not a question.
When would finally gets around he makes a very distorted argument when Jewish scholarS (plural-one was mentioned) makes the argument that unitarianism is a reaction to Christian theology how can you say for 4000 years no Jewish Scholars had opined on any concept of any type of trinitarian formula from the TNCH or “Old Testament.”
Mohamed Hijab response: Don’t give me Benjamin Summers give me one primary source of any Jew for 4000 years who opined on any concept of any type of trinitarian formula! Great response!
Mohamed Hijab when its his turn to question does the exact same thing that David Wood did a moment ago. He doesn’t ask a question. Again where are the moderators?
So Mohamed Hijab quotes from Justin Martyr finally gets to his question. How can you assure us that there has not been a Greek mythological influence on the formation of the Trinity?
David Wood response: We have first century documents that Christians had utter contempt for the doctrine of the polytheist and the pagans. Christians get their views from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
David Wood ask a question. Tawhid comes from the Arabic Wahaddah -which means “to unify” or unification and if you are unifying something you are bringing different things together.
I think this is the kind of question that David Wood and Christians in general should ask of us as Muslims, especially those who believe in Tawhid and the attributes. This would be more beneficial for both Christians and Muslims.
Mohamed Hijab response: Mohamed Hijab did admit that Tawhid means “to unify” and that it could mean different things in different context. Ahad means ‘the one and only’ Wahid could mean a thing that is cardinally counted.
Mohamed Hijab also took the opportunity to say as an Athari/Salafi that they don’t believe that the book /ink of the Qur’an is eternal, but that the Qur’an as an attribute of Allah (swt) is eternal. However, they don’t do tashbih of it.
Mohamed Hijab ask a question to David Wood: If Jesus is the author of the TNCH or “Old Testament” as a divine command theorist if they are made by Jesus the author of the “Old Testament “and he gives bad injunctions. God, a maximally perfect good being could give us bad injunctions?
David Wood response: David Wood says he don’t recall saying there are bad things in the “Old Testament” but he did mention there are all sorts of things that bother him.
This is very good because Muslims should capitalize on this. David Wood is a product of post modern secular United States. David Wood often uses liberal and progressive liberal moral standards to attack things attributed to the Blessed Messenger (saw).
However, he has openly admitted that he is bothered by edicts and commands of Jesus in the “Old Testament” and that too has to be because he is a product of post modern secular United States. At 1:58:00 David Wood admits about biblical passages that refer to the Canaanites and invading the land of the Canaanites “they make me wonder some times.”
David Wood ask a question: In the hadith we have the Prophet Muhammed (saw), saying that if you swear by anything other than Allah you are committing shirk so why does Allah swear by things? The seen, the unseen and all sorts of things?
Doesn’t this sound like pantheism?
Mohamed Hijab response: says shikr (associating partners with Allah) can by definition only be done by other than Allah. This is sound and a good response. Allah can make an oath by anything because everything belongs to Allah.
Mohamed Hijab ask his question: You (David Wood) mentioned you were wrestling with things in the “Old Testament”. Do you believe the injunctions of God (as a divine command theorist) must be perfect?
David Wood response: If you mean there are many bad things going on in the “Old Testament” 2:04:04 “I am a diagnosed psychopath I don’t have bad feelings about these kinds of things.” There is the ideal situation and what happens and Jesus addressed this when he talked about Moses and the law allowing divorce.
David Wood ask his question: Chapter 61:14 of the Qur’an “Allah says he aided the true followers of Jesus until they became uppermost” and wouldn’t that mean the Christians today?
Mohamed Hijab response: According to the Qur’an the disciples of Jesus were Muslims. You will not find an apostolic succession for your beliefs.
Mohamed Hijab ask his question: I want to ask this question one last time. Can you name for me one Church father who declared that the Holy Spirit was God?
David Wood response: The Bible calls him (Holy Spirit) eternal. (You can hear David Wood exhale and sound exacerbated. It is not a good look for him. You need to keep your calm and poise during a debate.) David Wood says creed as no authority beyond scripture.
David Wood ask his question: Mohamed Hijab you mentioned the Ebionites who had parts of the Gospel of Matthew , they rejected the virgin birth, and didn’t believe prophets received revelation but spoke of their own wisdom. If Ebionites are the true followers of Christ wouldn’t we have to reject Islam as well?
Mohamed Hijab response: I never claimed Ebionites are true followers of Christ. I just made the point that they had the islamic position on two aspects. They came before the gospel of John. So Mohamed Hijab is showing that Christians had very disparate views in the early strata of the Christian community.
Mohamed Hijab should have been stopped by the moderators but once again beyond answering David’s question he was doing a rebuttal of some of David’s points. That Melchizedek should be brought into the David’s understanding of the Trinity as Melchizedek is eternal, and that the Greek word for ‘God’ -theos is used of Paul, the Devil and a host of other beings and persons.
David Wood 5 minute conclusion: at 2:16:14 minutes.
David Wood makes the claim that many Jewish scholars would be comfortable with Christian affirmations on theology, trinity and other issues. David concludes by asking about Allah praying, the idea of the spirit coming ‘forth from Allah’ , people drinking the Blessed Messenger (saw) blood, Qur’an interceding in the form of birds. Islam looks like its trying to copy Christianity but just doing a really bad job of it.
Mohamed Hijab 5 minute conclusion: at 2:21:25.
David Wood has spent more time trying to disprove Islam than to make a case for Christianity. One man’s orthodoxy is another mans’ heresy. Hopefully Mohamed Hijab will keep that in mind when dealing with Islamic history as well. insh’Allah.
Who gives these Church fathers the authority to decide what books go in/out out of the Bible. Our chains of narration are going back to the Blessed Messenger or to Allah. He (David Wood) believes in progressive revelation. That is why the Bible mentions about the upcoming Prophet. Our Prophet is a military winner and we are not shy about that. All of Prophet Muhammed’s (saw) his prophecies came true.
Mohamed Hijab makes a plea to David Wood, 20 years of attacking Islam and mockumentaries , dressing up as a woman and making fun of our Prophet (saw). We will forgive you and the Muslims will forgive you if you repent today. We are not allowed to curse the gods of other people. The Bible in 1 Peter 3:15 lays down a beautiful way to have dialogue. Give us your hand and we will shake it but only if you respect us in the first place.
I will not cover the Q & A session and it was a bit all over the place. However there were a few good questions and I would encourage you to watch it.
Conclusion: Muhammed Hijab was clearly dominate in this debate. I personally don’t think I have ever watched a debate in which David Wood lost so soundly.David Wood was left off balance and forced to make some embarrassing admissions.
The one issue left unsettled is the one that David Wood pressed on and on about. That is why does Allah pray? Who does Allah pray to?
Where as Muhammed Hijab had a very focused and very concise list of four questions that David Wood did not do a very great job of interacting with.