Christine Weick: The New Face of Islamophobic Evangelical America

Christine Weick is the new face of Christian radical extremism in America. Very recently, she’s been known as the “crazy” Monster Energy lady:

She’s also known as that lady which interrupted the Muslim-Christian event in a Washington Cathedral:

Lately, she’s been known as that lady which screamed at Muslims in Texas for Texas Muslim Capitol Day:

I became friends with her on Facebook following her Monster Energy rant, I was interested in her views. After a few weeks of interacting with Christians on her page, I found myself knee deep in Christian Evangelical America. A lot of questions came out of my observation of this brand of Christianity, but the most important question of all has been, what platform do these people represent or seek to represent?

Christine and those of her ilk, view America as the bastion of democracy, freedom and Christianity in the world. Muslims are a threat to America, America’s way of life and a direct threat to the reign of Jesus in America. Muslims are inherently evil, who worship a false God and need Jesus in their lives. Yet, she fails to realise that everything she has done has driven Muslims away from Christianity. Moreso, I’ve personally seen her berate, abuse and attack Christians when they disagree with her on her page. Those sorts of interactions were downright scary, throngs upon throngs of radical evangelists demonizing each other, praising the deaths of “freedom hating apostates of the Church”. I made the occasional comment, but I was mostly an observer. This brand of Christianity is spiteful, hateful and vengeful in the name of Christ.

America is the home of freedom, but not if you’re a Muslim! Freedom of speech? Nope, I’ll grab that mic and scream that your Prophet is false and you deserve to get out of America/ Jesus country. What entertained me the most is perhaps the Christians praising her for standing up for Jesus. How exactly screaming at people with different beliefs than yours and insulting them was standing up for Jesus, failed to register with me and that particular remark actually earned a few likes on her page. Interestingly, she was invited to Israel for a few weeks last year and was actually persecuted by Israeli-Jews for being a Christian, this being demonstrated in videos she herself posted on her page. She mentions one such instance:

God was amazing in providing our escape. We gave them our extra tracts that they demanded and an opening appeared and we got out of there! It was very stressful and scary. The police never came. But we ended up okay. Shaken but okay. Thank you Lord!

Here’s the video of that escape from Israeli-Jewish persecution. In another incident, they were verbally assaulted and attacked by Israeli-Jews before she could return to the safety of her car:

PLEASE WATCH THIS! This was taken after we got back from Ramallah. One of our group went into a bakery to get bagels and pass out tracts to the Jews. They caught us before she could get back into the car. Notice how they tore the tract. God provided incredible protection! I will post the rest of the video next.

Here’s the video of that incident. I do believe that the videos are unable to be viewed unless one sends her a friend request, but she readily accepts those on a frequent basis. Despite being attacked, assaulted and chased by Israeli-Jews, she still supports them! This despite handing out those same tracts in Muslim areas and not once being insulted. In fact, she even visited Amman, Jordan and failed to receive persecution from a single Muslim. Yet, she continues to support Israel and persists in demonizing Muslims. If face to face interaction with violent Israeli-Jews and peaceful Muslims were not enough to get her thinking about her behaviour, there is very little that will.

I posted the following message on her wall, if I do get a reply from her, I’d readily post it:

Hi Christine Weick, a few questions please. A lot of Muslims and Christians messaged me with these so I hope you can help us out:

1. If you’re defending American freedom and by extension freedom of speech, on what grounds do you deny American Muslims the right to that freedom?

2. Would Jesus approve of you screaming at people and insulting their beliefs because they don’t agree with you?

3. If you’re standing up for Jesus by insulting and screaming at Muslims, do you think this is an intelligent, mature and Christ-like way to evangelize to them?

4. Should Muslims look at you as an example of how to treat people they disagree with in Muslim majority countries? i.e., should they prevent Christians from gathering, protest Christian worship, attack their events and insult their beliefs, along with screaming at them?

5. Should Muslims in turn, heckle Christians at their events given your example?

6. Given that you see Islam as un-American and that it should not be allowed in America, should Muslims also eject Christians from their countries if we are to be fair?


Perhaps, the best way to engage with Christine, is to invite her to Muslim talk shows, host public dialogue events with her in a professional setting. She does not seem to be very educated about either Islam or Christianity and so, a dialogue would be the best way to highlight her issues, while providing her audience with eye opening material. She is driven by hate, but with some sensible dialogue and a peaceful approach, Christine can be an entry point for Muslims to do some out-reach work with Evangelical America.

and God knows best.

January 2015 – Most Views in a Single Month!

Two months ago, in November of 2014 we received our highest amount of page views in the three years that the site has been operational. That was in large part due to a paper on Qur’anic manuscripts. That momentum was cut short when the site was taken offline for upgrades mid-way through December 2014.

Today though, we’re proud to announce that we’ve surpassed the amount of page views we received in November of 2014, which makes this month, January 2015 the month in which we’ve received the greatest number of views that we’ve ever had.

The month’s not over, so we’re still expecting tons of more views and visits to the site. All this being accomplished without another publication being done. Thank you for your support!

and Allah knows best.

Infidels: An Islamic Term?

It’s probably likely that you’ve associated the term “infidel” with Islam. However, the term “infidel” is a Catholic-Christian term, originating from the Latin language. It has no roots in Islam or Arabic terminology. Some have attempted to equate “infidel” with “kafir”, but these are two different terms, from two different languages that carry two different meanings. “Kafir” – كفر in the Arabic language means a “rejector” or “one who covers”. When used theologically in Arabic-Islamic literature, it refers to one who “rejects the truth of Islam”. The Islamic usage is clarified by Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyad ul Haqq from the UK lower down in this article.

The Origin of the Word Infidel

The word infidel, is actually a Catholic term, used by the Iberian (Spanish + Portugese) Catholics to describe a person with any other religious affiliation beside that of Christian Catholicism. This might come as a shock to many but the list of persons referred to as infidels, are Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Protestants, Arians have been subject to use of this terminology by Catholic Christianity. My evidence isn’t Muslim scholarship, but the 1910, Volume 8 of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

(Latin in, privative, and fidelis.)

As in ecclesiastical language those who by baptism have received faith in Jesus Christ and have pledged Him their fidelity and called the faithful, so the name infidel is given to those who have not been baptized. The term applies not only to all who are ignorant of the true God, such as pagans of various kinds, but also to those who adore Him but do not recognize Jesus Christ, as Jews, Mohammedans; strictly speaking it may be used of catechumens also, though in early ages they were called Christians; for it is only through baptism that one can enter into the ranks of the faithful. Those however who have been baptized but do not belong to the Catholic Church, heretics andschismatics of divers confessions are not called infidels but non-Catholics.

The relation in which all these classes stand to the Catholic Church is not the same; in principle, those who have been baptized are subjects of the Church and her children even though they be rebellious children; they are under her laws or, at least, are exempt from them only so far as pleases the Church. Infidels, on the contrary, are not members of the ecclesiasticalsociety, according to the words of St. Paul: Quid mihi de his qui fortis sunt, judicare? (1 Corinthians 5:12); they are entirely exempt from the canon law; they need to be enlightened and converted, not punished. Needless to say, infidels do not belong to the supernatural state; if they receive supernaturalgraces from God, it is not through the channels established by Jesus Christ for Christians, but by a direct personal inspiration, for instance, the grace of conversion. But their condition is not morally bad; negative infidelity, says St. Thomas (II-II, q. x, a. 1), does not partake of the nature of sin, but rather of punishment, in the sense that ignorance of the Faith is a consequence of original sin.

That is why the condemnation by the Church of proposition lxviii of Baius: Infidelits pure negativa, in his quibus Christus non et praedicatus, peccatum est (purely negative infidelity in those to whom Christ has not been preached is a sin), was fully justified. But it is different with regard to positive infidelity, which is a sin against faith, the most grievous of all sins, apostasy. Being endowed with reason, and subject to natural law, infidels are not excluded from the moral order; they can perform acts of natural virtue; and so the ecclesiastical authorities had to condemn proposition xxv of Baius which declared that: Omnia infidelium opera peccata sunt, et philosophorum virtutes vitia (all works of infidels are sinful, and all the virtues of the philosophers arevices; cf. St. Thomas, loc. cit., a. 4; Hurter, Theol. dogm., III, thes. cxxvi and cxxvii).

– [Catholic Encyclopedia, “Infidels”].

Not only was the term ‘infidel’ supposed to refer to all non-Christians, it was also used as a basis to create religious and state laws to demean the “unfaithful”:

The laws regulating the dealings between Catholics and infidels in civil life were inspired also by religious motives, the danger of perversion, and the high idea entertained in the ages of faith of the superiority of Christians to infidels. These regulations, of course, did not refer to all acts of civil life; moreover, they were not directed against all infidels indifferently, but only against Jews; at the present day they have fallen almost completely into desuetude. – [Ibid].

Does “Infidel” mean “Kafir” in Islam?

Shaykh Abu Yusuf Riyad ul Haqq [db] explains the use of the word “kafir” in Islam. The term itself has many meanings and it does not necessarily refer to solely “those who disbelieve in Islam”, as explained by the Shaykh, it holds varying contexts, one surprising example is that in reference to a farmer in the Qur’an:


Despite popular usage and its association with Islam, the term “infidel” has no real relation to the faith. Similarly, its equation with the Arabic-Islamic term of “kafir” is also without justification. Some Muslims may unfortunately perpetuate this confusing of terms by adopting the usage of “infidel” in their religious vocabulary, but that does not legitimize nor validate it. Share this article with your friends and let’s help clear the air on these terms!

and God knows best.

Note: This article was originally published on 29/7/2012 @ 6:20. After being featured on AlterNet, Salon and Raw Story  under the section of “Heretics”, I realised the main video link was not working and have since fixed that issue while making some minor changes to the article itself.

Missionary Mishap: Missionary Talks to Jesus – Will Help Us Solve the Bible’s Textual Problems


So, I meet this lady who says she talks to Jesus all the time! I decide to ask for her expertise since she has a direct line to the one guy that can help us solve our textual challenges with the New Testament. She says she’ll ask him about it. What are the chances I should expect a reply?

Note: For those pedantic types, I meant the Latin Vulgate and the later “Greek Textus Receptus”. The Latin is not the same as the Greek.

and Allah knows best!

Christianity’s Shari’ah Law: Theonomy & Catechism

Laws are meant to be guides on living a morally acceptable lifestyle. For example, the term Torah quite literally means, “the guide/ teaching”. In the Abrahamic faiths of both Islam and Judaism they offer a body of law that spans from personal practise to the governance of the Muslim and Jewish nations. In Islam this is the Shari’ah and in Judaism it is the Halacha. In terms of religious belief, one has to live a morally acceptable lifestyle and to do so means to obey the commands of God. For a Muslim and a Jew, doing “good” is to say that one adheres to the delimits which God has set. If God says that consuming alcohol is wrong, then it would be morally reprehensible to commit that sin. If God says that giving charity is good, then to give charity would be morally recommended. It’s a fairly simple and straightforward concept to understand, if I do what God says is good to do, then I’d live  a “good” life. Both Islam and Judaism accept this notion of practising God’s law as part of their soteriological outlook. In other words, we can attain salvation by adhering to the commands of God. For a Muslim or a Jew, being good and living a life led by God is spelled out for us, all we have to do is adhere to God’s laws.

For Christianity though, it isn’t as clear. The religion of Christianity is morally insufficient, it lacks a moral structure to adhere to. To be “saved”, one merely has to have belief in a series of doctrines developed over a number of centuries. Doing “good” or to live a “Christian lifestyle” is to be led by the Holy Spirit, which is often reduced to one’s adherence to the 10 Commandments. Christians don’t believe that they need to do “works” to attain salvation, but the consequence of such thinking has led Christians to live rather unstructured moral lives that have left many feeling spiritually unfulfilled as will be explained shortly. How does one exactly live a good life, or how does one define what a Christian community is, if there are no guidelines to follow? For example, is the clothing I wear acceptable to God, or is the food I’m eating approved by God? How does one begin to define a “good” Christian lifestyle? For Christians, this has been a difficult question to answer and over the centuries churches have developed different solutions to this inherent problem with the Christian religion and its moral insufficiencies.

For the Catholics, they developed the Cathecism which is a collection of principles that Catholics should adhere to if they want to be considered as “good Christians”. Some Protestant groups like the 7th Day Adventists try to adopt some of the 613 commandments in the Old Testament by following dietary restrictions and a quasi-Sabbath. However, in the 20th century a movement arose in the Protestant sect which is known as “Christian Reconstructionism” or “Theonomy”; which often means ‘to be ruled by God’s law’. In essence, they are trying to fill this moral gap, this moral absence from the daily life left by the inadequacies of the Christian faith by calling for adherence to the Mosaic law, i.e. the law of the Old Testament. Christians often mock both Muslims and Jews for rigidly practising ritualistic law, but they fail to realise that it is impossible to live a lifestyle according to God’s moral approval if there are no commands or guidelines to follow. One can’t live a good life if one does not know “how” to be good. Sure it’s acceptable to not lie, cheat, steal or murder, there’s some moral compass innate in all of us but we’re looking at the bigger picture here. How does one manage their home to be acceptable according to God? Or manage a country in a way God would approve of?

Christianity can’t answer that question because of it’s vitriolic stance against the ritual practise of law. With the growing calls for Christianity to re-adopt the Mosaic law from Christian groups, this is more or less a concession as to the moral inadequacy of the Christian faith. Salvation is dependent on law, it is dependent on obeying God’s guidelines and despite centuries of denying this, the Christian religion is now beginning to accept this. There can be no salvation by faith alone.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries