Jesus, the Fake Jihadis & Evangelical Christians

I’ll be publishing a review of this work this week. It is a fascinating and highly scholastic work, written in accessible language that delves deeply into Biblical scholarship and their recent attempts at maligning Islam, most specifically the claims of Craig Evans. I very strongly recommend this work and hope that many Muslims can pick it up as it provides some excellent material to help us respond to missionaries when they try to use ISIS as a means of preaching their hatred against Islam.

However the author didn’t stop there, he proceeded to discuss other prominent topics relevant to Craig Evans including the historical Jesus, the Biblical presentation of Jesus and their relation to the Qur’anic view of Jesus.

jesus jihadis

The book’s description is as follows:

This is a critical examination of a number of extravagant claims made by the New Testament scholar, Craig A. Evans, and the polemicist, Jeremiah J. Johnston, in their recently co-authored book, “Jesus and the Jihadis: Confronting the Rage of ISIS: The Theology Driving the Ideology.” Unfortunately, the authors direct their own propaganda styled rage upon the religion of Islam itself and the person of Muhammad.

In this book we will see that the authors’ rage towards Islam often compels them to misquote the Quran, even fabricate claims regarding it, unleash many untruths concerning Islamic religious texts, entirely bypass normative Islamic scholarship and distort the history of Islam. They are not the least bit shy to express their utter contempt towards Islam. Examples are provided in this book to substantiate these claims.

The authors are on the same wave length with ISIS. They “use” Islamic texts using ISIS’ non-scholarly methodology. The rich interpretative tradition of Islam simply does not matter.

This book will show that contrary to the claims of the authors, the Islamic religious texts categorically speak against wanton violence and the killing of civilians, so strongly indeed that a major terrorist organisation, much larger than al-Qaeda, the Al-Gama’ah al-Islamiyah , had to renounce violence after a detailed study of Islamic religious texts.

Also discussed are the topics of the historical Jesus research, the divinity of Jesus, source criticism and Biblical and Quranic eschatologies. It is argued that the basic Quranic outline of Jesus comports well with the results of much of historical Jesus research.

The book can be picked up on both the Amazon (US) Store and the Amazon (UK) Store.

and God knows best.

Do Muslims Love Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him)?


I’m often asked this question by Christians. Do Muslims really love Jesus (peace be upon him)? It’s a question I’ve always found to be odd, but it is popular and asked with good intentions. It’s odd because nothing in Islam portrays Jesus (peace be upon him) in a negative light. The Qur’an says of Jesus:

“And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit.” – Qur’an 2:253.

Of his birth, it was said to his blessed mother Maryam (may God be pleased with her):

He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy.” – Qur’an 19:19.

The Qur’an emphasizes his place and role amongst the blessed Messengers of God:

“And [mention, O Muhammad], when We took from the prophets their covenant and from you and from Noah and Abraham and Moses and Jesus, the son of Mary; and We took from them a solemn covenant.” – Qur’an 33:7.

There are six main articles of faith in Islam, of them, one is the belief in the Messengers of God. Thus, it is considered a rejection of faith, disbelief or kufr to reject or deny the Prophethood of Jesus (peace be upon him). As the blessed da’ee Shaykh Deedat has said,”no Muslim can be a Muslim if they reject Jesus.” As is Muslim tradition, we also pray for the Prophets of God by asking that God’s blessings, peace and mercy be upon them all. This is why we always write peace be upon him, after mentioning a Prophet’s name.

In other words, for a Muslim to be Muslim, they must love, accept and believe in Jesus (peace be upon him). However, the love that Muslims have for Jesus (peace be upon him) and the love that Christians have for Jesus (peace be upon him) is two completely different things. It is difficult for Christians to claim that they truly love Jesus (peace be upon him). The way in which Christians profess to love Jesus (peace be upon him) is through his alleged dying and suffering. Muslims cannot and do not rejoice at the suffering of the Prophets. In the Qur’an it says of the attempt to kill Jesus (peace be upon him):

And they (disbelievers) plotted [to kill ‘Iesa (Jesus)], and Allah planned too. And Allah is the Best of the planners. – Qur’an 3:54.

The Qur’an indicates that those who attempted to kill Jesus (peace be upon him) are those who are against God. It is recorded in the New Testament that Jesus (peace be upon him) condemns the Jews for killing Prophets:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. – Luke 13:34 & Matthew 23:37.

Jesus (peace be upon him) himself proclaims that it is an abhorrent evil that a Prophet should be killed, with many an exegete commenting that this verse indicates God’s ire with the Jews. It can then be understood that the killing or death of a Prophet is not something good. It is something that Jesus (peace be upon him) condemned, something which God expresses His anger against, and so it is difficult to reconcile Christianity’s happiness with Jesus’s (peace be upon him) alleged death, torture and suffering, with loving him. Without delving into soteriological issues, with regard to the Muslim and Christian concepts of Jesus (peace be upon him), it is a clear point of distinction that Muslims do not rejoice at the death, torture and suffering of God’s Prophets, but that Christians praise, enjoy and celebrate such an act of evil.

Muslims love Jesus (peace be upon him) to the point that they want no harm to come upon him, that he does not suffer or is not killed. Yet, Christians love Jesus (peace be upon him) because he needed to die for them, he needed to suffer, he needed to be tortured. This ‘love’ is quite perplexing, the idea of loving someone to the extent you need them to die and that you rejoice at their torture and death is an inscrutable irony. It is something which simply cannot be ignored. It necessarily needs to be viewed as cognitive dissonance. How is it that one can love someone to the point that you wish death upon them? That you wish to see their blood spilled? That you celebrate in masses the blood of Jesus (peace be upon him)? Is this not bloodlust?

In conclusion, Muslims do love Jesus (peace be upon) without wishing death or harm upon him. Christians also love Jesus (peace be upon him) in a different way. They love him to the extent that he needed to be tortured, maimed and killed – the very thing he condemns the disbelieving Jews of doing to previous Prophets. As the artist Meat Loaf once sang, “I’d do anything for love, but I won’t do that!”

and God knows best.


Islamophobia, Racism and Dishonesty

I often choose not to respond to vicious character attacks, whether they come from a major Christian apologist or a beginner in the inter-faith field. Recently Jonathan McLatchie decided to go on a string of unfortunate articles where he has targeted several Muslims in the inter-faith field. Collectively, we’ve decided to forgive him. I myself forgive him for what he has said about me, the issue(s) we have with him are purely professional, not personal. Therefore, when I saw his last few posts and articles attacking some of my colleagues, I knew that he’d have to eventually write about me. I’m okay with him having done that, I’m okay with his name calling, his insults, his mistakes. After all, he’s only human. He’s quite young, and as he matures he’d quickly find that such behaviour is inappropriate.

Now unfortunately, Jonathan seeks to blame me for sharing the words that came out of his mouth. I previously had shared a clip of one of his lectures where he openly derides Islam and Muslims as inviting a cancer and virus into European civilization. I’ll gladly share that clip again:

He insists that I’ve somehow misunderstood what he’s said. However, he does go on to state that he made a mistake in his wording, that he said something wrong:

“While I try to present information with a high level of factual accuracy (and I think I succeed in doing this for the most part), occasionally I can make a mistake or change my mind on something that I have said. I take full responsibility for anything that I say that is not accurate, and I hope to always correct those when brought to my attention.”

The problem here is with Jonathan’s thinking. Any sensible person would quickly realise that if you admit that you made a mistake, then whatever was understood from your mistaken words, you are responsible for that mistake. So, what does Jonathan do? He claims to have taken responsibility for those inappropriate words. That begs the question, if I misunderstood him, then why did he find the need to acknowledge what he said as a mistake? If I had misrepresented him as he claims, then it would mean that his words were not mistaken. However, the opposite is true. He’s admitted that he spoke mistakenly, therefore acknowledging that whatever he said was indeed wrong. That’s simple logic, it’s common sense. So from Jonathan’s own words, he said something wrong.

If I have rightfully corrected him on his mistake, then in what sense have I misrepresented him? Therefore, what we are seeing from his behaviour is pure immature nonsense. We need to look at his next statement:

“That mistake on my part aside, did I really describe “Muslim immigrants of an ethnic background to be cancers and viruses that are invading Europe”?”

He says he didn’t say this, he says what he meant was:

In what was regrettably a poor choice of wording on my part, I likened these Muslim enclaves in France to a cancer — my meaning of course was that such enclaves are a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism. It was not intended to refer to the individuals who live in these areas. By likening the enclaves to a cancer it was the ‘No Go Zone’ structure itself I was talking about, and not the Muslims living within such areas nor even the ones who were enforcing such a structure.”

Let’s stop right here. In the first line what does he say? He says he likened Muslims. Fullstop. That’s it. He’s admitted that he’s lying about me. In his own words, he’s clearly stated that when he spoke in the Church about enclaves being cancerous and like a virus, he was specifically referring to Muslims. So which is it Jonathan? Did I lie when I said you were referring to Muslims, when you yourself have said you referred to Muslims. You’ve vindicated me. You’ve thoroughly demonstrated that in your haste to insult me, you did not consider what you had written. In his later explanation, as quoted above, he indicates that he didn’t mean people, he meant structures. Yet, in the very first sentence he says he’s referring to Muslims – people! In the space of one paragraph he has demonstrated his dishonesty. At this point, I have no reason to continue this article. He’s demonstrated for me, through his own words that he was dishonest, deceitful and deceptive. I will continue just to illustrate the lengths through which he is willing to lie, he said:

“To support his allegation, Ijaz links to a video on his YouTube channel, highlighting a lecture I shared on Facebook back in September of 2015. The only problem is that nowhere in the video is it claimed that ISIS is normative for all, or most, Muslims.”

I’ll link the video here:

If anyone watched the video, the lady explicitly says that following the Prophet’s teachings (peace be upon him), naturally leads to behaving like ISIS. The majority of Muslims worldwide follow in some capacity the Prophetic Sunnah, whether Sunni or Shi’i. Therefore, what is normative for Jonathan, if not what the majority of Muslims follow? It would either mean that he lied, that he did not watch the video, or he does not know what the term normative means. I’m inclined to believe all three. Jonathan further argued that I somehow did not represent him correctly regarding his comments about Khalid Yasin. In that very article, click here to read it, I explicitly said:

Should Jonathan correct himself, I will edit this post to reflect this.

Did Jonathan ever message me to tell me that he corrected himself? Yes, he did. Earlier today right before he posted his article complaining about it. What does that say about him? I publicly offered to correct the article if the information was incorrect and Jonathan knowing this, chose to mention he did correct himself shortly before making a post to whine about it. Integrity is important. All he had to do was give me a heads up and I’d gladly have corrected the article, but he chose not to do so. This means that he wanted an opportunity to complain about. He waited for weeks before opening his mouth. This is simply inappropriate behaviour for a person who dares call others names.

As many would know, Jonathan has upset quite a few people in the inter-faith community, both Muslim and Christian. There was a point in time that I asked him, why he joined out of all people, David Wood and Sam Shamoun as partners in his apologetics. There were many other people he could have aligned himself with, Dr. White, RZIM, etc. Instead he chose people who lack credibility in their own Christian circles. He chose to align himself with people that identified with his ideas, beliefs and vitriolic views. Therefore, I find it quite funny that he speaks with such hate against me. His problem isn’t that I misrepresented him, it’s that I dared to publicize his statements. As we’ve seen above, he’s clearly admitted to referring to people as cancerous and as a virus. There is quite literally nothing to debate about, his own words have settled that matter.

Interestingly, it’s almost a weekly occurrence where he says he wants nothing to do with me. Guess what happened today? After posting his article, we exchanged a few e-mails again. He says one thing publicly and another thing in private. I’d like to share something posted by Br. Yahya recently directed at Jonathan‘s deceptive behaviour:

A quick note to Jonathan McLatchie [pass it on to him please]

Firstly, if you introduce me again with such underhand negativity…like you did just now and in your previous comments in your response on the Son of Man (which I let slide) I will be on the brink of playing tit-for-tat with you. That will mean, I will introduce you negatively every time I mention you, right now I’m leaning towards calling you a plagiarist (a true epithet for you…you’ve been found out on a few occasions IIRC).
I can handle negativity, insults and even arrogance. Here’s something I recently received from (perhaps one of your co-religionists):

“Muslims are filthy pig swill….. Go to hell. I would rather fight you cunts till I die than become one of you”

Now, I have a thick skin and don’t usually respond in kind. Sticks and stones break your bones but names…

However, one thing I will not stand for is two-faced behaviour. When you say you want to improve relationships and even want to meet up for a cup of coffee and then continue with underhand slights there’s an issue. It’s an issue with your sincerity.

Another thing I was willing to let slide, you liking comments calling people idiots (namely myself:)) and liking other negative comments about Ijaz Ahmad and perhaps others. You’re ‘notorious’ for it. You seem like a passive aggressive type….your buddy Shamoun beats his cheat and really gets his hands dirty (normally in the act of picking up ‘pig swill’ and hurling at Muslims). Your other buddy Wood strips down and gets into his wife’s undies to have a go. Your buddy Pastor Najm rattles off his anti-Muslim diatribes facing the camera. Those boys, sure their acts are deplorable and betraying their spiritual natures, but you do get the feeling they will stab while you’re facing them. The same with the two con men from Egypt, ‘Prince’ and Dakdok (not entirely sure if they are your buds). You on the other hand wait lull me into a false sense of security and wait for me to turn my back and then get your drawing pin out and prick me…what’s the end game, death by a thousand cuts?

In the end, I forgive Jonathan for his behaviour, his insults, his misrepresentations. He’s young, he’ll make mistakes and hopefully he can find a route to more mature discussion.

and God knows best.

Is It Racist to Be Racist? – Jonathan McLatchie

Until I read Jonathan’s recent post, I had not realised just how desperate he was to misrepresent what those in the inter-faith community are angered with him about. It should be noted and categorically stated, that criticism of Islam is not tantamount to racism, until one includes race and ethnicity into it. When this occurs, the promoting of religious based ethnic vitriol is considered racism and this is what Jonathan is accused of.

It is symptomatic of Jonathan’s behaviour to appeal to straw men when criticised either about his behaviour or his statements. No Muslim has ever stated that his criticism of Islam amounts to racism, however, his castigating of Muslim immigrants and their ethnic communities in Europe as a cancer and a virus is racial based vitriol, and this is what is considered racism. To begin with, Jonathan considers Muslim immigrants of an ethnic background to be “cancers” and “viruses” that are invading Europe –

Furthermore, he has shared links in the past and defended their contents relating to his racist views. These links are videos where he has argued that Muslim immigrants create “no-go” zones, effectively terrorizing peaceful Europeans. To further his cause, despite now saying that he does not believe ISIS’ brand of religion is normal for most Muslims, in the past he has argued that they are and shared videos towards that cause:

If race has nothing to do with it, then why is that he’s recently criticised and mocked “White Converts to Islam“? See, he has a bad habit of saying one thing, denying it and then saying another. His lack of integrity knows no bounds. This is one reason that he’s decided to go to South Africa where racial intolerance has currently been spiking, he has found that his ideas about White’s, immigrants and Muslims, appeal more to Christians in Africa than in the UK. He can be assured that there will be many surprises awaiting him when he lands in South Africa.

It is funny that Jonathan needed to share a post where he considered banning Muslims from America wrong, as proof that he’s not racist, but does not consider sharing a lecture by himself labeling those same communities in Europe as cancers and viruses that have no place in Europe as proof that he is racist. Hypocritical? Indeed.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries