Author Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Modern Christian Apologetics and Paul’s Methodology

Posted on by 4 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As of late I must admit to be reading most of the anti-Islamic Christian missionary websites. It is very important that I frequent their latest publications, so that I may acquaint myself with their newest arguments. Interestingly, I haven’t actually ever come across a new argument that an Orientalist Christian historian has not presented before. Thus to me, these websites don’t actually present something new or difficult for me to deconstruct and debunk, often times upon mere reading I can dismiss them as logically equivalent to child’s play.  However, during this time, I’ve run into some problems and I wish to highlight them. Christian apologetics in the 21st century has gone from defending Christianity[1] to attacking Islam. Therefore the very nature of Christian apologetics has drastically undergone a transformation that needs to be understood, commented on, and it is sad to see that not much attention has been given to this untimely change. It is in lieu of this trend, that I have decided to author this short piece, contrasting the methodologies employed by Paul to that of the current Evangelical movement.

The change in missionary tactics has much less to do with defending Christianity from Islamic arguments, but more to do with  presenting the dying Christian faith[2] with a life line. This method of propagating Christianity through demonizing another predominant faith is not new to the religion. Pauline literature presents a prime example as to how early Christians propagated their new faith. Christianity in its earliest stages was not monolithic, various groups competed against each other[3] to become the most dominant and eventually to be dubbed the ‘orthodox Church’. Paul was not a stranger to this competition for dominance and as such, in order to present his brand of Christianity as being the sole authentic heir to Christ’s ministry, his evangelism took a rather radical turn. When a creature is near death or threatened, an adrenaline rush kicks in, thus giving way to the fight or flight response. Christianity has largely taken the flight response (mass apostasy)[4], with most Christians in Europe identifying themselves as culturally Christian, spiritually Atheist. For those who have taken the fight response, their methodology should be dubbed the ‘Pauline Agenda‘, as this is what best describes their modus operandi in today’s world.

E.P Sander’s states concerning Paul’s writings, “In general terms, Paul’s way out of this dilemma was to connect the law with sin and to assign it a negative place in God’s plan of salvation[5]”, he continues by later saying, “But sin grasps the law away from God. It uses it to promote transgression (7:8, 11, 13), and the result is that the law kills (7:10f.). In 7:7-13 the law is still connected to sin, but sin is not attributed to God’s will.[6]” From this, we must understand that Paul’s answer to the early Jews who rejected his message and to that of the Jewish – Christians was to demonize their doctrinal stance on soteriology. In essence, their plan for salvation led to death, it led to sin and to follow this plan led to being rejected from the Kingdom of God. This is most clear when we read the following verses from Romans[7]:

“Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.”

The conclusion to be derived from this, is that when Christianity is threatened from prospering, missionaries evolve their apologetics from defense to that of offense. Just as what Paul did in his writings, so too are evangelical polemecists doing today, they are creating the straw man of a common enemy to which they can propagate their unified message of Christianity against. Therefore in their minds, they are establishing Christianity as some ideology which is intellectual superior, logical and rationally sound. Instead of having to defend their religious doctrine, they create a common enemy which they perceive to be their biggest threat, demonize their enemy as being misguided and dedicate all efforts to attacking this enemy instead of defending their religion. When the enemy responds, they then respond to their enemy’s response, thereby establishing a whole field of data to which they can constantly respond to. What they have therefore done, is placed everyone’s focus on their dialogue with Muslims, while removing focus on their doctrinal deficiencies. In today’s language we label this: sleight of hand. Therefore, when we see Christians today promoting, ‘Dialogue with Muslims’, as opposed to, classes or lectures on their doctrinal conundrums (often dubbed holy mysteries), it is in an effort to establish their faith as superior to the Islamic faith without having to explain Christianity’s doctrinal conflicts, contradictions and illogicality.

Yet, in doing so, the message they have consequently conveyed can nonetheless be described as being wholly self contradicting. Before I proceed with an example, let’s examine Paul’s employing of this method. The use of this tool for Evangelism during his time has also led to confusion of his own personal doctrinal positions. E.P Sanders says[8], “All Paul’s statements cannot be harmonized into a logical whole, but each one can be understood as coming from the application of different of his central convictions to diverse problems.” In other words, while he has dedicated his time to repudiating the positions of the Jews and Jewish-Christians, he has dug himself into a precarious position. His arguments became contradictory and confusing, illogical. Similarly, we find Christian polemecists saying that the Qur’an was copied from the Bible, but at the same time the Qur’an was also copied from Greek philosophers, Jewish historical books and Gnostic writings. Either the Qur’an is a bad copy of the Bible, or it is sourced from the other aforementioned sources. They claim that the Qur’an is not copied but rather written in Syriac as opposed to Arabic, but then they claim the Qur’an was written by Uthman [ra] in Arabic after Muhammad’s [sallahu alayhi wa slaam] death. Their positions cannot be described as being sequitur, for if we were to collect them and present them as holistically sound, we would not be able to do so.

Similarly, they say that the Qur’an was authored by a mad man, yet ignore that Paul himself was plagued with a messenger of Satan while authoring the New Testament Epistles[9]. Another popular argument is that Muhammad [sallalahu alayhi wa sallam] was a murderer and war monger, while they also argue he did not exist at the same time[10]. Clearly they are in confusion, just as Paul was and their arguments cannot be consolidated into a logical whole. Their attacking of Islam is not in response to Muslim da’wah work, but it is a methodology employed to stall the ever increasing apostasy from their religion. Paul was successful in conveying his message to the Greeks who largely accepted him as an authority[11], yet in today’s world, this methodology has largely failed as the modern missionary is finding much problems with the modern Muslim. We are not ignorant of the Bible, and when 20 year old Muslims like myself can run websites and organizations dedicated to exposing their faults, clearly something is amiss. To put this into perspective, Paul’s success was at a time when most Greeks were ignorant of the new Christian faith, most regarded it correctly, as a form of Judaism. While the Jews themselves regarded it as heretical (which is of those whom Paul found little favour with). Edgar J. Godspeed emphasises on Paul’s futility to convert the Jews but the relative ease as to which the Greeks took his message[12]:

“In presenting the Christian gospel to the Greek world, Christian leaders in the first century were more and more embarrassed by the fact that the Jewish people, among whom the new faith had arisen, did not in any large numbers accept it. Christianity seems to have failed in its first campaign. Its first field was obviously the Jewish people among whom it had arisen; Jesus was their Messiah, foretold by their prophets. But his own people had refused him. What did it mean? The prophets had been full of pictures of the redeemed nation. The coming of the Messiah was to release a new program of spiritual glory for Israel. In the cherished messianic drama his appearance was to be the cue for the nation to take the stage. But the nation had not responded. The Christians joyfully accepted the Jewish scriptures as their Bible, but the prophetic program seemed to be breaking down.

Yet Christianity was not failing. It was winning an amazing success, but in the Greek, not in the Jewish, world. Christianity was, in fact, rapidly becoming a Greek religion. But this success of Christianity in the Greek world only increased the difficulty of the problem. It was nothing like what the prophets had said would happen when the Messiah came.”

Similarly, Evangelicals using Paul’s method have not found favour with Muslims, but with wavering Christians. Just as at the time of Paul, while Paul demonized the Jews as being in perpetual sin, he found favour with those outside of the Jewish faith. In modern terms, while Evangelicals demonize Muslims, they find favour with those outside of the Muslim faith. Thus, the Pauline Agenda as I have dubbed it, is clearly being utilized by our missionary friends, the parallels are too explicit to ignore. The Pauline Agenda can be broken down as such:

  1. Make a claim against an opposing religion.
  2. Allow the believers of that religion to respond.
  3. Consume their time and their congregation’s time in responding to the opposing religion’s responses.
  4. Focus on 2 and 3 while presenting a prima facie study of their doctrine to their own congregations.
  5. If doctrinal issues arise, give standard, basic, simplified responses.
  6. If doctrinal issues are taken to deeper levels, label your opponent as being misguided and satanic:
    “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.“

Evidently, the writing is on the wall, as is explicitly demonstrated with some of the Christian websites today, who are explicitly using this method:

  • Answering Islam.
  • Answering Muslims.
  • Calling Muslims.
  • Ministry to Muslims.

These Christian organizations are not dedicated to defending Christianity, but dedicated to attacking Islam as a last ditch effort of keeping the religion alive. Sadly, the only persons who seem interested in their message are zealot evangelicals who decry and belittle their own scholarship as liberal ignorants while staunchly swearing by the inerrancy of a muddled, interpolated and largely emendated medieval scripture. Due to their arrogant ways, when they do write about Christology, they muster illogical and overtly verbose articles that are easily dismissed and simple to denounce. Case in point, Answering Islam’s articles on the deity of Christ which I have put through simple criticism yet yielded a plethora of successes[13]. It is therefore, in the modern Christian’s best interest to remain in the fight response[14], as engaging in proper intellectual discourse of their doctrine can only lead to apostasy of their Christian brethren, thus they must occupy their congregation with attacking Islam and focus on presenting simple doctrinal teachings to them. Is the Pauline Agenda going to be successful, as it was at the time of Paul? Truthfully speaking, it was not successful at the time of Paul as he failed to convert Jews, similarly the Evangelicals are not making any significant headway into Muslim populations but in response, we Muslims are breeding more websites, da’wah groups and study sessions to refute them. The only reason Christianity spread to the extent it did was due to Constantine’s political influence, military and judicial overview. Some Christians may discredit me for making such a statement, but the Catholic Encyclopaedia states[15]:

“Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State.

It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition.”

There exists no modern equivalent to Constantine today, the Pauline Agenda will not yield the results that the Evangelicals seek. How they will evolve his methodology is yet to be seen, but as their articles demonstrate, they are dependent on the writings of old and when they do embrace new theories; they cannot defend them save for being labelled inconsistent and self contradictory. In conclusion, while the methods they have employed are not new, the goals are the same, but the means are insufficient. I am unable to see any new content being produced from amongst their apologists and as can be clearly seen by any well read person, they have begun to recycle their old articles, sometimes reposting them while restating a few paragraphs and presenting them as new argumentation. Surely, they are in a sad state of affairs. The writing is on the wall for Christianity.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

[1] – The original reading of ‘apologist’ is not to be taken in the modern sense of ‘being sorry’. The etymology renders it as being one who defends his faith/ argument.
[2] – The latest census of religiosity in the UK shows that Christianity has fallen considerably, while Islam has risen significantly.
[3] – Galatians 2:4-5.
[4] – US Evangelicals do not understand the spiritual state of Europe. Many are spiritually atheists, Christianity means nothing to them
[5] – ‘Paul, the Law and the Jewish People’, by E.P Sanders, Kindle Edition: Location 1079-1079.
[6] – Ibid, Location 1215-1215.
[7] – Romans 8:5-8.
[8] – ‘Paul, the Law and the Jewish People’, by E.P Sanders, Kindle Edition: Location 1402-1403.
[9] – 2 Corinthians 12.
[10] – Robert Spencer’s ‘Did Muhammad Exist?‘
[11] – Acts 13:46-48.
[12] – ‘An Introduction to the New Testament’, by Edgar J. Godspeed, ‘Matthew’, page 158 – 159.
[13] – Our codex of responses to Answering Islam’s Sam Shamoun on Christological arguments.
[14] – The Fight or Flight theory explained, as per my usage.
[15] – ‘Constantine the Great’, in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

Calling Christians Celebrates 1 Year

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Today, December 20th, exactly one year ago, Calling Christians had its inception. I had almost forgot this fact until I curiously checked our WHOIS to ensure that the credit card we used had its personal information removed. In this one year, a lot has happened. The look of the website has changed numerous times, the articles continue to flow covering so many new topics, everyday we have new commenters, our Facebook page is growing, our e-mail following continues to grow, on Twitter we have more followers, etc. With each passing day we see more visitors, an increase in e-mails and more interest in what we write and the message of Islam.

Our audience spans each and every continent, we have a vast non-English speaking following from places like Sweden, Denmark, India and even South Korea. The largest source of viewership is North America followed very closely by European states, Muslim majority countries are the lowest source of viewership which would mean that we are hitting our targets: Christians. It’s almost daily that we get e-mails asking about new Muslim classes, or if we can help a new Muslim seek salvation from their Christian parents, or if we can help a new Muslim in a hostile nation seek protection. Some complain that we often don’t reply to comments on our articles, but that’s because behind the scenes we’re dealing with so many apostate Christians that it becomes a handful! All praise is due to Allaah that we can continue to serve the New Muslim Community.

In the past year, so many Christian authors have found themselves refuted by our articles that they resorted to making videos and dedicating copious amounts of time to ‘respond to us‘, namely James White, Anthony Rogers and even CL Edwards. We’ve even managed to anger Sam Shamoun to the point that he is avoiding mentioning us, for fear he gives us more attention. I’ve had one smashing debate with Anthony, that he got so incensed that he made a video, by stealing from a Muslim website. Due to this, the very Muslim he stole from refuted him and now Anthony is stuck making excuses and promises for a follow up. Brother Qmark, one of our authors has had Anthony hiding his tail between his legs for so long, the quality of scholarship here at CC only serves to demonstrate just how much effect we have on our Evangelical brethren.

Our team is growing constantly, yet we remain completely self sufficient. We’ve acquired funding until 2014, and as time goes on, we’ll continue to make ends meet as we provide more services for the Muslim and Christian communities. I’ll reveal one little unknown fact about Calling Christians. On Christmas of 2011, after 5 days of starting this website we received our highest viewership in a single day until this was later trumped by successive increases. It was really ironic that the website which was dedicated to debunking Christianity, had its highest day of visitor viewership on Christmas, I can never forget that.

Thank you for all the support, we hope and pray that Allaah ta ‘ala allows us to continue inviting Christians to Islam, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam,
Br. Ijaz Ahmad – Director of Calling Christians.

How Matthew 27:52-53 Cost Michael Licona His Job

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Michael Licona is one of the 21st century’s most prolific Evangelical Christian debaters. His debate with Dr. Shabir Ally is counted as one of the most influential in apologetics and as one of the most intellectual public displays of Christian-Muslim dialogue. Michael recently debated Br. Yusuf Ismail of IPCI and that was a smash hit for the South African brother and Shaykh Ahmad Deedat’s [db] legendary organization. Matthew 27:51-53 has caused significant missionary problems for the inerrantists. A literal interpretation establishes the text as falling outside of the realm of historicity and figurative interpretation can lead you to be demonized and shunned by the conservative community as a liberal. Sadly, this was the case with Michael Licona. His change of view on this particular passage lit a fire which sparked public outcries, denunciations, character assassinations and so on. Please view Br. Muslim by Choice’s video on the incident:

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Does Jesus’ Holy Spirit Make Him Divine?

Posted on by 14 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

As it would seem, Chessie Edwards was so incensed by the proverbial spanking he got in relation to his poor study of Christology that he made a video about Christian apostate, Br. Hamza and his article. I’d like to make it known that Islam prohibits mocking of the mentally ill, or mocking of anyone for that matter, but in this case I’m making an excuse for Chessie as he seems to slip in and out of it every once in a while. I watched his video, and sadly I am unable to make up for the time lost. Was his video worth it? Nope.

He spends 37 minutes speaking about his ego, his studies, money donations, mentions the articles a few times, mentions that he was a Muslim etc. The only reason he spent time making a 37 minute video (with special effects and all), is to avoid writing an article where you actually have to use quotations, references, citations. You must understand that this is Chessie’s weak point, he’s not an academic, he doesn’t study, he is at best a Christian for the camera, not a Christian who is able in the field of apologetics. This can be seen by his lacklustre writing skills and his lack of intellectual fortitude via our Rebuttals section. He’s been refuted on this same topic by Christian apostate Br. Hamza in this article, thrashed by me in this article, wholly refuted in this article, demolished in this article, and now he’s finally realised that writing about it any further will cause him severe embarrassment. It’s bothered him so much that after numerous comments left on this website (not a blog), over several weeks, after several written responses, he’s so incensed at being intellectually rounded, that he’s resorted to making a video, and a bad one at that.

Out of those 37 minutes, he does ask a question, and it’s a question which completely refutes himself. He asked, ‘Where do Christians teach this, where does Christianity teach this’? If he had read any of the 5 articles on the subject, he’d have endless resources to utilize. However, because I am a good natured 20 year old, and I understand that Chessie is getting old; I will aid him one final time in his understanding of his religion. Let’s turn to a Patristic whom I quoted earlier, who clearly answers Chessie’s question:

“Nay, but he adds, And that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,3 because God is spirit,4 and He was born of God:5 this certainly has him in view, the more so if it has also those who believe in him.’ Then if this too applies to him, why not also that other? For you cannot divide them, this to him, the other to the rest of men: for you do not deny the two substances of Christ, that of flesh and that of spirit. But if he possessed flesh no less than spirit, when he makes a statement concerning the condition of the two substances which he bore within himself, he cannot be thought to have made a pronouncement concerning spirit as being his but flesh as not his. Thus, since he was himself by the Spirit of God (and the Spirit is God) born of God, he was also of human flesh and as man conceived and born in the flesh.” – Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 18.

Let’s then turn to the Catholic Church’s Cathechism which teaches what we’ve been saying all along:

I. THE JOINT MISSION OF THE SON AND THE SPIRIT

689 The One whom the Father has sent into our hearts, the Spirit of his Son, is truly God.10 Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them, in both the inner life of the Trinity and his gift of love for the world. In adoring the Holy Trinity, life-giving, consubstantial, and indivisible, the Church’s faith also professes the distinction of persons. When the Father sends his Word, he always sends his Breath. In their joint mission, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct but inseparable. To be sure, it is Christ who is seen, the visible image of the invisible God, but it is the Spirit who reveals him.

690 Jesus is Christ, “anointed,” because the Spirit is his anointing, and everything that occurs from the Incarnation on derives from this fullness.11 When Christ is finally glorified,12 he can in turn send the Spirit from his place with the Father to those who believe in him: he communicates to them his glory,13 that is, the Holy Spirit who glorifies him.14 From that time on, this joint mission will be manifested in the children adopted by the Father in the Body of his Son: the mission of the Spirit of adoption is to unite them to Christ and make them live in him:

The notion of anointing suggests . . . that there is no distance between the Son and the Spirit. Indeed, just as between the surface of the body and the anointing with oil neither reason nor sensation recognizes any intermediary, so the contact of the Son with the Spirit is immediate, so that anyone who would make contact with the Son by faith must first encounter the oil by contact. In fact there is no part that is not covered by the Holy Spirit. That is why the confession of the Son’s Lordship is made in the Holy Spirit by those who receive him, the Spirit coming from all sides to those who approach the Son in faith.15

Chessie, now that you have been thoroughly refuted and routed once more, I suggest you get a refund from that Bible school you are attending, clearly you’re wasting your parent’s money and my time.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Women’s Intelligence Hadith

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

TEXT AND SOURCING

The hadith states that the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, addressed a group of women in the mosque, saying:

“I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious, sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked: “O Allah’s Apostle, what is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said: “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said: “This is the deficiency of your intelligence”… “Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said: “This is the deficiency in your religion.”

It is related in al-Bukhari and Muslim.

ITS MEANING IS NOT LITERAL

The hadith here uses two figures of speech: the first is hyperbole (mubalagha) meaning exaggeration in the words “even a prudent, sensible man might be led astray by some of you” i.e. a fortiori an ordinary man.

The second figure is synechdoche (majaz mursal) consisting in using the whole for the part: intelligence to mean the specific legal testimony of a woman, and religion to mean the prayer and fast at the time of menses.

Numerous verses and other narrations stress that the reward of women equals that of men even if their acts differ. So this particular narration is not meant literally but as an acknowledgment of the inordinate power women wield over men while ostensibly less active in the public and spiritual spheres.

THREE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND MEANINGS

Three additional meanings provide an indispensable completion of the picture of this hadith. These meanings revolve around fundraising for jihad, the blame of women’s cursing of their husbands, and the playfulness of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, with his female public.

1. FUNDRAISING

The real import of the hadith – spoken at the Farewell Pilgrimage – and its actual context was that the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, challenged the women that were present to realize that unless they helped raise money with their gold and jewelry, they would miss the reward of men waging jihad as well as show ingratitude.

2. BLAME OF CURSING

In the full version of the hadith the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, also orders the women to ask forgiveness and desist from frequently cursing their husbands. All this was spoken at a time of (1) the impending departure of the latter on jihad; (2) the impending departure of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, from this world; and (3) the fact that “Cursing the believer is like killing him.”

3. PLAYFULNESS

The Prophet upon him blessings and peace, was also being playful in his use of strong terms to impress this teaching on the listeners. Ruqayyah Waris Maqsud writes:

“After the Farewell Pilgrimage at the Eid prayer, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) walked past the men leaning on Bilal’s arm, and came to the rows of women behind them. Bilal spread out a cloth and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) urged the women to be generous with their gifts of charity, for when he had been allowed a glimpse into the flames of Hell, he had noted that most of the people being tormented there were women. The women were outraged, and one of them instantly stood up boldly and demanded to know why that was so. ‘Because,’ he replied, ‘you women grumble so much, and show ingratitude to your husbands! Even if the poor fellows spent all their lives doing good things for you, you have only to be upset at the least thing and you will say, ‘I have never received any good from you!’ (Bukhari 1.28, recorded by Ibn Abbas – who was present on that occasion as a child). At that the women began vigorously to pull off their rings and ear-rings, and throw them into Bilal’s cloth.”

In conclusion, we need to remove the meaning of the words of the Prophet upon him blessings and peace, from our contemporary context of sour feminism and the clash of the sexes, and replace it into its proper context: namely, a parting, wartime exhortation using certain figures of speech which are not meant literally, nor are women the issue although they are addressed pointedly and, as it were, by the scruff of their gender; but rather, to trigger among wealthy and sensible citizens acts of generosity for the greater good while reminding them that life is fleeting and thankfulness a surer way to Paradise than despair.

And Allah knows best.

gibril
[2006-05-30]

Note: This article by Shaykh GF Haddad as read on www.livingislam.org

Movie Review: The Innocent Prophet

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Pastor Terry Jones and an alleged Muslim apostate have collaborated to produce a new film on the Muslim Prophet, Muhammad  [peace be upon him]. The film was uploaded to popular video sharing website, Youtube, earlier on the 15th of December. Pastor Terry Jones and FFI’s Ali Sina have been promoting this film as a ‘must see’, where it is allegedly supposed to have ‘exposed Islam and its Prophet’. I sat and watched the “movie” earlier today and this is my review.

Terry Jones in the Movie's Introduction

Terry Jones in the Movie’s Introduction

It must be noted that I watched the English version as uploaded on Terry Jones’ Youtube account. This is not a movie, it’s a bad cartoon. If you were expecting something of better quality than the failed Coptic movie which caused vast and violent riots worldwide earlier this year, then by all means, lower your hopes. The ‘film’ is marginally better and can best be described as a badly narrated picture slideshow of Arab men with the name Muhammad [peace be upon him] cut and pasted unto the images. The video quality seems very low and poorly done, and I am very certain that the editing was done by an amateur. The slides and images seem to have been taken from Google Images and are repeated throughout the slideshow to the extent that you’ll probably end up spending 1 hour and 12 minutes seeing the same images about 20 times each.

If the imagery doesn’t throw you off, then the narration definitely would. When news first broke of this new ‘film’, I expected a higher quality, robust, well produced movie, yet, what I got in the English version is the exact opposite. This ‘film’ is so bad, the English narrator struggles to speak…English! His accent, intonation and tone, definitely indicates that his first language is not English. I really have to ask Terry Jones, if you are doing a movie in English, why not use someone whose first language is English? Instead, the person narrating the ‘slideshow‘, struggles throughout, which creates an off putting sensation as you can literally feel the person forcing himself to cope with his manoeuvring of the English language. In addition to this, there is some music in the background, and it’s bad. It’s as if they stole everything they used in this ‘slideshow‘, from the internet. The music is a gimped version of Hollywood styled Arabian jingles and it is repeated so often, it conjures a great resemblance to the annoying task of having to wait on the phone to speak to an insurance agent or customer care service representative, while that horrible background music is played. I couldn’t get past the first 10 minutes without struggling to watch it, and I spent the first 5 minutes trying not to have a headache from the deplorable narration and music.

The information presented is not historical and borders on fiction. It was during the first 10 minutes, that I recalled the producer of the film, i.e. the alleged apostate, posted on FFI indicating he was a long time fan of Ali Sina. From this, based on my reading of FFI’s Ali Sina’s book, “Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet“, it hit me that the ‘producer‘ basically summarized Ali Sina’s book and was narrating it. That literary work in itself is highly flawed and not based on proper study. Ali Sina’s work simply takes from Ibn Ishaq’s Seerah and focuses on the violent passages within (which due to proper literary criticism are found to be highly doubtful), and from this, he concludes that the Muslim Prophet had numerous illnesses and diseases etc, essentially it’s a book meant to insult the Prophet of Islam, not an academic work. What’s worse is that Ali Sina actually invents stories and tries to develop it into a narrative. The book is so bad and the author was so desperate to insult the Islamic Prophet, that Ali Sina who is not a psychologist, labelled it a ‘psychobiography‘, I prefer to refer to it as fiction. The video’s very source for its information is therefore very flawed, inconsistent and has no regard for academic integrity. Thus far, the video quality consists of:

  1. Google Images of Arab Cartoon Men.
  2. Google Images of an Arabian Map.
  3. Pictures of Muhammad [peace be upon him] are the name Muhammad cut and paste on the Arab cartoon men.
  4. Arab themed jingle music most likely stolen from the internet.
  5. An English narrator whose first language is not English.
  6. An ahistorical and non-academic source for the slideshow’s content.

Do I think this movie will cause riots? To be quite honest, I think it’d cause suicides based on how bad it is. Thank God I had pain killers to numb the effects of the narrators voice, bad music, poor cut and paste images and especially from the ridiculous use of a non-academic source. Should Muslims watch it? It clearly is supposed to be about the Muslim Prophet, but the images, nor the history would have you think that much. The only thing that would indicate it was about the Islamic faith is Pastor Terry Jones’ introduction before the movie, along with a few passages of the Qur’an at the beginning of the ‘slideshow’. I certainly don’t think that this ‘movie‘ – I insist on calling it a slideshow, is going to change the world, make any Muslim apostate, or convince anyone of anything, but it will serve to reinforce the notion that Islamophobes have a long way to go before anyone would be willing to accept their works as anything more than amateur-like and polemical.

Pros & Cons:

+ I reviewed it to save you wasting 1 hour and 12 minutes of your life.
– It’s on Youtube (this was a pro, until I remembered how awful the new layout is).
– Features Terry Jones.
– Horrible imagery.
– Bad editing and videography.
– Lacks academic sources and study.
– Horrible audio.
– Horrible narrator.

Please consider purchasing pain killers before watching this video, it will make you sick from how bad it is. In closing, I would like to mention how ironic it is, that the very man they try to insult and use disparaging images of, they have no clue of how he looked or what he sounded like, therefore their representations of him are not of the actual Islamic Prophet, but of a created man who has the name Muhammad, a production based on their imaginations, not of the real man himself. That reminds me of a pertinent hadith. The Quraysh out of their great hatred for the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to refer to him as “Mudhammam”, which means “the condemned/defamed one” instead of his name “Muhammad”, which means “the praised one”.

In response the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

ألا تعجبون كيف يصرف الله عني شتم قريش ولعنهم يشتمون مذمما ويلعنون مذمما وأنا محمد

“Doesn’t it astonish you how Allah protects me from the Quraish’s abusing and cursing? They abuse Mudhammam and curse Mudhammam while I am Muhammad (and not Mudhammam)” [Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 733].

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Christian Missionaries on Facebook: Part 2

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Missionaries on Facebook love to argue. They will argue with you on the most minute of details, in a pedantic manner and obsessively so. In my time, I’ve realised that instead of arguing with these Evangelicals, what I do is present basic logic to them. They are humans, so I assumed that once I used simple words, with logic that even a child would understand, then I’d get the desired result of stopping a missionary in their tracks. Here is one case of this:

christian facebook

You’d notice that from the Christian’s first reply, that she’s ready to argue; likewise it’s also quote noticeable that she’s not read the chapter, which is relatively short.  As is the norm with most Christians, the first response is always a denial. At first she denies that non-Christians will be ‘forced‘, therefore I took it upon myself to very simply explain what I meant by being forced into worshipping YHWH. It took her 14 minutes, but I suppose she realised that there were no two ways about it. She suddenly turned from a crazed Evangelical Christian, to a Perennialist! In other words, she went from believing that Christ is the only way to heaven (as is the standard Christian position) to instead saying she isn’t certain of her belief and accepting that maybe all religions lead to the same God, so it doesn’t matter what we believe.

The sudden and drastic change in her position seriously stunned me. All it took was two comments, 14 minutes and we’ve achieved one less crazed Evangelical in the world. All praise is most certainly due to Allaah who has opened the hearts of the many Christians we do da’wah to.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Christian Missionaries on Facebook

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I found this conversation between a Muslim male and an Evangelical Christian on Facebook. One of them is preaching to the other, I’m sure it was one sided, but the abuses contained within are shocking to say the least. 

2 Facebook-083422

 

To my Muslim brother, I say stay strong, the more this Christian shows the true intents of his religion, the more us Muslims will be able to understand that they do not love us. They hate us and they hate us with a passion. I am sorry that you had to ensure such abuse from a ‘soldier of Christ’, but this is the fruit of Pastor Isang, an ally of ABN TV’s Sam Shamoun and David Wood. If you head to the Christian’s profile, you’d notice his picture is one of a crusader, they were known for massacring Muslims and Jews for a vast amount of their history. In other words, our Muslim Br. Yemi Lawal is being attacked by a Christian who not only hate him, but if provided the opportunity, would hurt him.

May Allaah ta ‘ala protect him from such evil, Ameen.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Debate: Is Islam a Threat to Modern Society, Sami Zataari vs David Wood

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,


You can view the debate here:

Below’s my review of their opening statements.

David’s Opening

I found it quite distasteful, if not outright insulting for David to have an audible preamble before his opening arguments. Usually, this would contain greetings, pleasantries, thanking the organizers, commenting on the person’s experience thus far in the country and so on. In contrast to this norm, David Wood decided to appeal to emotion, mentioning the sentencing of 7 Christians in Egypt for the ‘Innocence of Muhammad [saws]’ film. What he fails to mention is that his own God, YHWH, permitted the killing of children for insulting a Prophet:

“From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!”  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces.” – 2 Kings 2:23-24

He also failed to mention that the blasphemy laws in Egypt are also used on Muslims, in this recent case, a Muslim was charged under it for tearing the Bible on TV. Therefore, I must declare David’s preamble to be nothing more than a manipulative and incredulous act for which he should apologize for. I am willing to accept his statements if they were inclusive of his opening statement, but since this is not the case, I must condemn such an intellectually disrespectful act. I’d like to know if Sami agreed to David’s doing of this before the debate began and if not, why the moderator did not stop David or begin timing once the nature of the statements had resonated with his thought process.

David decided to limit his areas of discussion to two topics, they were:

  1. Islam as a threat to non-Muslims.
  2. Islam as a threat to women.

Beginning with (1) he states:

  • Islam’s attitude to non-Muslims is a threat to society.

David mention’s what the Qur’an says about Muslims and then compares what the Qur’an says about non-Muslims. I can’t say I found this to be a strong argument, or a viable one at that. The entire concept of considering yourself a ‘believer’ in any ‘religion’, presupposes that you consider ‘disbelievers’ to be wrong and thus for being wrong, God would employ some form of punishment on them. Disbelievers would quite obviously be seen in a negative light, unequal to the status of believers. A fair question to David would have to be, whether or not he realises this and if he believes that there are no negative remarks about ‘infidels’ (a natively Christian term), in the Bible. Here are some examples of negative mentions of disbelievers in the Bible: 1, 2, 3. As a theist, David should have atleast recognized the double standard he was employing, I’m not sure if he was naive enough to believe that such an infantile argument would be supportive of his views, if he did, that was indeed poor of him.

He found issue with the Qur’an mentioning that believers are the best people and disbelievers are the polar opposite, the worst of peoples. Does David believe that the elect in Christianity, those saved by Christ, are not the best of peoples and that the disbelievers, those condemned to eternal perdition are the best of peoples? The hypocrisy from David is absolutely mind blowing. It was of course, compulsory according to common Evangelical tactics to mention Qur’an 5:51, unfortunately for David, as has been stated time and time again, the word for friend in Arabic is ‘sadiq’, the word for protector, military ally, is ‘awliya’, one example of the context of this verse is the Prophet’s initial treaty with Banu Qurayza until they sided with the Qurayshi army and thus caused significant distress and harm to Muslims. Then again, David is an Evangelical Christian, from amongst the ilk of Sham the Shamoun and James White, I have learned in the few years I have been active in this realm of apologetics that this low level of study is prevalent among them. If there’s a cheap tactic to use, be sure that they’d use it.

Might I remind David, that the Jews whom he refers to as his friends in being condemned as disbelievers in the Qur’an, that his very own Bible paints are far worse picture. Is it better to be the worst of all creatures, or the children of Satan? Would David please answer this question?

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God. 48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?” – John 8:44-48

David proceeded to mention that Muhammad [saws] decided to rid the Arabian peninsula of non-Muslims via expulsion to establish a proper state for him and his oppressed brethren. How would David then measure up to Zechariah 14, where Christendom believes with the second coming of Christ that all non-elect would be ejected from the Holy Land and then brought only to be forced into worship, or else face torture and disease for not doing so? He continued by mentioning, that if Muhammad [saws] did not want to live alongside Christians and Jews in the Arabian peninsula, and we Muslims have to abide by his Sunnah, how can we expect to have a modern society? David is appealing to ad ignorantium, as Muslim societies have always flourished with a plethora of faiths. When the Muslims entered Africa, Abysinnia, what happened? Peaceful co-existence, when the Muslims conquered Egypt from the Roman Empire, again there was peace among the majority Coptic population. When the Muslims conquered Iberia from the Trinitarian Catholics persecuting Arian Christians and Jews, there was again prevailing tolerance and peace. The 4 rightly guided Caliphs and their reign, did not entail any persecution of Jews or Christians, therefore history and a proper studied of Islamic history, as opposed to a prima facie reading of one hadith is the opposite of what is required to derive sensible, and intellectually acceptable arguments.

Continuing with (1) his second sub point is:

  • Islam commands Muslims to violently subjugate non-Muslims.

He begins with the notion that there is some magical 3 step program that Muslims follow to take over the world, from wherein we then persecute anyone and everyone. Argumentum ad Baculum indeed. The 3 step program he mentions, is as follows:

  1. When Muslims are outnumbered, proclaim peace.
  2. When Muslim numbers increase, they are permitted to engage in defensive Jihad. He cites Qur’an 22:39-40 as evidence for this.
  3. He doesn’t mention his 3rd stage, but logically, it would have to be when Muslims are in a majority. He cites Qur’an 9:29 as evidence for this.

His ‘3 stage step to taking over the world’ plan, isn’t particularly well studied. Whether outnumbered or not, as the Qur’an commands us in 25:63 to say peace even to those who mock, insult and attack us. No mention of ‘numbers’ there. Similarly, defensive fighting is also prescribed when Muslims were in fact, in charge of the first Muslim state, see Qur’an 2:190-194 which echoes similar sentiments to Qur’an 22:39-40, although Surah 2 was revealed in the ‘3rd’ stage of David’s plan. There is a clear false dichotomy.

Continuing with (1) his third and final sub point on this topic is:

  • Islam’s command to kill apostates.

The problem with this point, is how would one actually know if a Muslim has left Islam? The only reason one would know if a Muslim left Islam, is if he publicly declared it, therefore inviting the punishment upon himself. There is no room in Islam for punishing a person without reason. The person can leave the nation where Islam is dominant and avoid the punishment, or remain in the nation while openly condemning Islam and mocking it, thereby earning a punishment for such a crime. The same can be seen in ‘free and secular Western nations’, where dissidents undergo torture and renditions where they are imprisoned indefinitely and oppressed, not to mention that the punishment for treason is overwhelmingly death.

David then moved on to his second main topic, “The Status of Women According to Islam”. He begins by stating that Islam ‘drastically reduces the status of women’, despite the fact that the very first University in the world was started by a Muslim woman. His arguments were shoddy at best, he found problems with the Prophet [saws] asking spouses not to do actions which displeased each other, he even attacked the traditional heterosexual familial hierarchy where the man (usually the breadwinner) in most societies is seen as a figurehead in the home. This leads me to question David’s concept of women, doe she truly believe that there is an issue with not doing acts which displeases a spouse? Would that then mean, he approves of doing acts which displeases a spouse? I wouldn’t consider David an expert on marriage relations, but that is probably the worst advice you can receive on relationship counselling. Furthermore, does David accept the notion that a man does not have to lead a household, if so, is he willing to have his wife (if he is to be married, or if he is, I don’t kn0w) be the sole earner for his behalf and his protector in the event of a violent incident? This is clearly what his arguments are demonstrating.

David also found issue with Qur’an 2:23, which explains the sexual acts which are permitted in the Muslim marriage. I suppose that David does not accept stipulations when it comes to his sexual desires, otherwise, I find no reason for issue to be found with this verse. His first issue with Islam and women, is the “Support of Wife Beating“. What he fails to understand is the language of the Qur’an. The Qur’an does permit beating, but it permits a beating which leaves a mark or causes bruising. If you are fair skinned (in complexion) or caucasian, you can test this beating on yourself. Strike yourself with your finger such that it does not produce a pink or red imprint on the hand. Doing so, you’d find it impossible to feel pain. It’s actually quite difficult to hit someone without producing a mark on the skin. Therefore when the Qur’an mentions that you can hit your disobedient wife, it is really rhetorically letting the male know that abusing women is haram, this is understood due to the corresponding hadith on this issue:

” Right along with this option given to men, it has appeared in a hadith which means that, “The best of you will never beat their women.” Thus, (for example) such an action is nowhere reported from the blessed Prophet of Allah. – (Ma’arif al-Qur’an 2:426)”

Therefore, if beating in the manner that David was referring to was allowed, we would have seen it in practised by the Prophet [saws], since this is not the case, then David’s interpretation of the verse is completely out of context. His second issue with “Islam and Women”, is that Islam allegedly claims that “Women are Stupid“. He refers to Qur’an 2:282 refers to the testimony of women when it comes to contracts. What he fails to realise is that:

  1. A woman is not allowed to be in a room with a single man without a Mahram, moreso with more than one man.
  2. To avoid false witness due to forced coercing, she should have someone alongside her to prevent him from forcing her to sign against her will.

This therefore, has nothing to do with her mental capabilities, but with protecting the rights of a woman. It is very ironic then, that David chooses, he willingly chooses to interpret this verse as meaning that women have half the intellectual capabilities of men, or that they are stupid. I must then, regard David’s interpretation as being representative of his own personal view of women, while they are clearly in polar opposites to the intended meaning of the Qur’an. It is in this light, that I call upon David Wood to apologize to the female community and to cease his sexist remarks against our beloved womenfolk. Nowhere does the Qur’an mention in this verse, that women are less intelligent as men or that they are not as reliable. Shaykh GF Haddad explains this hadith in its entirety, which I recommend that Christian and Muslim alike, read to develop an authentic and accurate interpretation, as opposed to preconceived sexist notions of which David has duly demonstrated.

David’s third issue is that, “Islam Allows Marriage to Prepubescent Girls“. I would like to remind David, that in Islam, there is a difference between marriage and consummation. I’m sure he is well aware of this, but then again, he cannot appease his masters and his congregation without being deceptive. Does David relegate marriage to be merely about sexual relations? In Islam, this is not the case, when a man marries a female, he assumes three responsibilities, none of which are sex. They are:

  1. The responsibility of sheltering the wife, or of providing a shelter for her.
  2. The responsibility of feeding the wife, or of providing food for her.
  3. The responsibility of clothing the wife, or of providing clothes for her.

Nothing about sex need be stated. In fact, if a girl is married according to some contract and she rejects it, then the girl is subsequently divorced from the man. No consummation need occur. Similarly, no consummation can occur without a female’s approval, as well as no marriage is valid without a female’s consent. David’s gripe is with marriage to prepubescent girls, the problem with his argument, is that Muhammad [saws] consummated the marriage, post the prepubescent stage, what is termed as the stage of sexual maturity in biology and Islam. That being, when the female stops being a child, or in this case a girl and is in the process of womanhood.

David’s closing to his opening statement is probably as bad as they can come, he has issues with suicide attacks, but doesn’t find issue with suicide attacks endorsed by his own God, YHWH, see Judges 16. He found issue with 40% of Muslims wanting to be judicially guided by their religious law, I guess David, if he were to be honest, would find issue with the American Government passing laws which accedes to Christian beliefs? If not, can he publicly announce such a position, or would his evangelical brethren crucify him for such a stance? He spews off a few more statistics and ends his opening statement. I would easily challenge David on his question of, “what is the correlation between the statistics from the OECD and Muhammad’s [saws] teachings?“. To be quite honest, the nations he referenced have one or more of the following which contributed to their current status:

  1. Former colonies, therefore they lack infrastructure and wealth.
  2. Recently independent, whereas nations higher on the OECD list had some 300 years of Independence to rule, govern and develop their nations, David expects wealth deficient nations to do so in a vastly less amount of time.
  3. Dependent upon economic aid.
  4. Recently engaged in civil war or have been in a perpetual state of internal conflict post-Independence.
  5. Recently experienced droughts or have been experiencing droughts for extensive periods of time.

Therefore, the notion that it is Islam’s fault that these nations are as they currently present themselves to be, is based on abject ignorance of these nation’s history. Not to forego the complete and utter arrogance of expecting developing nations to economically compete with developed nations. I would have to state that David’s opening statement would have been acceptable some 30 years ago, when Muslims were much less aware of their religion. However, David and the evangelical missionaries of the world are facing a new world, one were 20 year old Muslims like myself can debunk their statements, where mid 20 year old’s like Sami Zataari can refute and debate on a platform with someone twice his age without having to resort to cheap insults, disparaging remarks and snide comments, as David has done.

Sami’s Opening

Sami begins by demonstrating to David, how one actually starts a debate. You don’t drop propaganda, you don’t pass a few underhanded comments, you don’t sneak some emotional arguments in before your time (David took 4 minutes lambasting Muslims before beginning his officially timed Opening Statement), you thank the organizers and thank your opponent. I have to commend Sami on his professionalism in this case. Sami lays the law down on David in a very eloquent manner. He indicates that what David spoke about is largely irrelevant, as those were his own personal interpretations of the ayats of the Qur’an and Ahadith. David’s interpretation would not necessarily be that of a Muslim’s understanding, thus David was addressing a reality that only he, himself would believe. He continued by informing the crowd that David’s real argument came at the end of his rabid diatribe, David only began addressing the real beliefs and understandings of Muslims by quoting statistical information. Sami emphasized the importance of establishing a dichtomoy; there is a difference between David’s personal theological interpretations (eisegesis), and the ground reality in the real world.

When it comes to discussing the ground reality, Sami let it be known that this was his area of study, as Osama bin Laden and Extremism was his thesis’ topic. His dissertation was subsequently accepted, thus allowing him to be an authority, or qualified in the subject area, hence his insistence on discussing this topic as opposed to perceived theological notions. Sami calls David out on his irrational logic, he questions him by stating that what David was doing, was that he was quoting verses and applying it to persons, when what he should have really been doing was finding out what the motivations of extremists were. What did the extremists who carry out attacks actually believe? What verses do they quote? What ahadith do they use? Instead of claiming that verses David thinks they use is proper evidence, David should have really brought forth evidences from the persons themselves. Thus in Sami’s conclusion, David’s argument was more rhetoric, than it was applicable and relevant to the topic at hand. To be quite honest, I’d have to agree with Sami. He’s spot on, David did not address the topic, what he addressed was his biased presuppositions, a departure from reality.

Acting upon his own counsel to David, Sami then goes to Osama bin Laden’s very own, “Declaration of War with the United States” dated to be from 1996. Therefore Sami didn’t rely on rhetoric or propaganda (as David’s irrelevant Creeping Shari’a comments were), but he depened upon Bin Laden’s own statements. Did Bin Laden do what he did, due to Qur’an 9:29? His manifesto does not mention this as a motivating factor, according to Sami, Bin Laden’s motivating factors were the aggressions of the US military in Arabian Peninsula, the US support of the Israeli Apartheid State. He also mentions that Bin Laden repeated this as his motivating factors in a 1997 interview with Abdel Bari Atwan, a London journalist. I have to applaud Sami’s use of relevant argumentation and his subsequent use of first person sources is absolutely sensational. As of this stage, Sami has clearly negated and rightfully so, a majority of David’s opening statement and has taken control of the debate. After calling David out on his largely irrelevant diatribe, Sami delve straight into the thick of the topic and immediately set the criteria for which the topic could be argued logically about. In doing so, and by referencing first person sources, I have no choice but to deem Wood as being out of Sami’s league and as being caught highly off guard.

Sami moved on to quote his own statistics, after establishing the reasoning and rationale of Extremists, he went on to state what academics themselves believe about the Extremists. He referred to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research which amounts to saying, “civilian casualties in Afghanistan at the hands of foreign troops creates enemies and causes people to become radicalised“. As the report itself states, “In Afghanistan we find strong evidence that local exposure to civilian casualties caused by international forces leads to increased insurgent violence over the long-run, what we term the ‘revenge’ effect.”, thereby qualifying his claim. Sami also referenced the Washington Post which had this to say, “the escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes [in Yemen] is stirring increasing sympathy for Al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.” Thus far, Sami has presented a logical, well reasoned argument that has extensive amounts of international study to qualify his claims. Not only has Sami stuck to the topic, unlike that of his opponent, Sami’s actually going to Western Academia, not Arab based studies or Sami’s personal convictions or his own personal interpretations of the conflicts.

He then moved on to another report, where New York University and Stanford University examined the effects of the US Administration’s drone strikes in the Pakistani Tribal region, according to the Guardian [UK], it entails, “the report details the terrorizing effects of Obama’s drone assaults as well as the numerous, highly misleading public statements from administration officials about that campaign. The study’s purpose was to conduct an “independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians.” At this point, Sami had actually referenced more academic sources than Wood, cited essential points, quoted the most relevant statistics than the entire time Wood actually spoke. You’d notice that the heat was getting a bit intense for Wood as each time Sami quoted another research paper, he took a swig from his bottled water. Sami then mentioned the false dichotomy of ‘good terrorism’ versus ‘bad terrorism’. When Western Administrations bombard civilian villages, it’s okay, but the moment a villager retaliates, they’re seen as barbaric, evil, and malicious.

Sami then referenced what he called the, ‘smoking gun’ of the debate, he references the Arizona State University’s Center for Strategic Communication’s report on Islamic Extremism which examined over 2000 texts used by extremists dating from 1998 to 2011. The study states, “Other findings in the report raise questions about the veracity of claims often made by analysts. The most surprising is the near absence of the well-known “Verse of the Sword” (9:5) from the extremist texts. Widely regarded as the most militant or violent passage of the Qur’an, it is treated as a divine call for offensive warfare on a global scale. It is also regarded as a verse which supersedes over one hundred other verses of the Qur’an that counsel patience, tolerance, and forgiveness. We conclude that verses extremists cite from the Qur’an do not suggest an aggressive offensive foe seeking domination and conquest of unbelievers, as is commonly assumed. Instead they deal with themes of victimization, dishonor, and retribution. This shows close integration with the rhetorical vision of Islamist extremists.

Based on this analysis we recommend that the West abandon claims that Islamist extremists seek world domination, focus on counteracting or addressing claims of victimage, emphasize alternative means of deliverance, and work to undermine the “champion” image sought by extremists.”

It is noteworthy to realise that none of the passages from the Qur’an which David referenced as a cause for Islamic extremism, was found to be in any of the 2000 texts examined in the report. For me, this is what catapulted the debate into Sami’s hands and ended it. There was no need for Sami to continue from this point, as he had gone above and beyond the requirements needed to overcome David’s rant. Recall that I mentioned earlier, that each time Sami cited a reference from a major publication or academic study, David rushed to take a swig of his water? Here it is in motion, as Sami is about to quote the Arizona State University’s study, David rushes to sip his water, the heat of the moment clearly causing some thirst as it would seem. Sami then went one step further, he mentioned his interview with Counter Terrorism Expert, Mubin Shaikh and the result of this interview is that Mubin statess, while he had infiltrated a terrorist cell, the verses and ahadith used by David Wood were never used by the extremists themselves. The irony of this, is mind blowing to be truthful. Continuing with his trend of using internationally acclaimed and renowned sources, he then referred to ex-CIA, Head of the OBL Unit, Michael Scheuer, who stated that 9/11 occurred due to America’s horrid foreign policy strategies. Moving on, Sami headed to the 9/11 Commission’s Report interview with Special Supervisor with the FBI, Agent James Fitzgerald, which the Guardian [UK] reported on:

“At the 12th and final public hearing of the 9/11 commission on 16 June, 2004, in Washington DC, a phalanx of senior law-enforcement and intelligence officials from the US government arrived to offer their testimonies. “You’ve looked [at] and examined the lives of these people as closely as anybody … What have you found out about why these men did what they did?” asked Lee Hamilton, the former congressman and vice-chair of the commission. “What motivated them to do it?”

The answers to these questions were provided by supervisory special agent James Fitzgerald of the FBI. “I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States”, he said. “They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States.”

David quoted quite a few polls on Muslim acceptance of violence, funnily enough, an American poll, established that American Jews and Christians (of David’s ilk), were more likely to justify violence against civilians than Muslims were. That violence being military on civilian and civilian on civilian was justified, both times Christians vastly outnumbered Muslims in the affirmative. Sami then went on to explain freedom of speech laws and their already existing limits, placing Wood’s arguments in the realm of being nothing more than fear-mongering and paranoia. This concludes Sami’s opening arguments.

David’s Pros and Cons:

+ He showed up for the debate.
+ He quoted a proper source or two.
– Failed to stick to the topic except for his final 2 minutes.
– Failed to argue relevant points pertinent to Sami’s sources.
– Failed to refute Sami’s sources and arguments.

Sami’s Pros and Cons:

+ Vastly superior sources from a spectrum of internationally acclaimed groups, organizations and individuals.
+ Stuck to the topic.
+ Addressed all of David’s points.
+ Spoke confidently and with authority.
+ Engaged with the audience.
– Can’t hold a mic to save his life. Here’s a tip, next time don’t hold it.
– Buy a hairbrush.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »