Author Archives: Ijaz Ahmad

Informant: NYPD paid me to ‘bait’ Muslims

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Propaganda is an important part of argumentum ad baculumessentially you are creating an enemy or attempting to justify some form of harsh tactics against an innocent person or group of persons. This is also a form of appeal to emotion, whereby you appeal to the sensitivities of people, whether that be their fears, likes, dislikes or addictions. In this case presented by Br. Shamiur Rahman, this is exactly what the NYPD has done. They’ve created a fear of threat, based on reasoning that is fallacious. Many right-wing Americans, such as David Wood, Sam Shamoun, James White and Pamela Geller, all owe their popularity to an impending threat of Muslim terrorism. A quick glance at their websites or radio shows, demonstrates clear cut fear mongering. Right wing America needs to foster this fear in order to promote whatever ideological views they seek to spread. For some, it could be votes, for others it is to promote a religion, the use of argumentum ad baculum is expansive. According to an article by the Huffington Post, the NYPD baited Muslims, rather created situations, manipulated Muslims and then prosecuted, spied and charged said Muslims based on their own preparations and planning:

NEW YORK — A paid informant for the New York Police Department’s intelligence unit was under orders to “bait” Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called “create and capture.” He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

“We need you to pretend to be one of them,” Rahman recalled the police telling him. “It’s street theater.”

Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was “detrimental to the Constitution.” After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police – and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP – he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, “Steve,” and his handler’s NYPD phone number was disconnected.

Rahman’s account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using.

The AP corroborated Rahman’s account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants.

Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD’s wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques – known informally as “mosque crawlers” – tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there’s no evidence they committed a crime.

The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA.

Police recruited Rahman in late January, after his third arrest on misdemeanor drug charges, which Rahman believed would lead to serious legal consequences. An NYPD plainclothes officer approached him in a Queens jail and asked whether he wanted to turn his life around.

The next month, Rahman said, he was on the NYPD’s payroll.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Tuesday. He has denied widespread NYPD spying, saying police only follow leads.

In an Oct. 15 interview with the AP, however, Rahman said he received little training and spied on “everything and anyone.” He took pictures inside the many mosques he visited and eavesdropped on imams. By his own measure, he said he was very good at his job and his handler never once told him he was collecting too much, no matter whom he was spying on.

Rahman said he thought he was doing important work protecting New York City and considered himself a hero.

One of his earliest assignments was to spy on a lecture at the Muslim Student Association at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan. The speaker was Ali Abdul Karim, the head of security at the Masjid At-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn. The NYPD had been concerned about Karim for years and already had infiltrated the mosque, according to NYPD documents obtained by the AP.

Rahman also was instructed to monitor the student group itself, though he wasn’t told to target anyone specifically. His NYPD handler, Steve, told him to take pictures of people at the events, determine who belonged to the student association and identify its leadership.

On Feb. 23, Rahman attended the event with Karim and listened, ready to catch what he called a “speaker’s gaffe.” The NYPD was interested in buzz words such as “jihad” and “revolution,” he said. Any radical rhetoric, the NYPD told him, needed to be reported.

John Jay president Jeremy Travis said Tuesday that police had not told the school about the surveillance. He did not say whether he believed the tactic was appropriate.

“As an academic institution, we are committed to the free expression of ideas and to creating a safe learning environment for all of our students,” he said in a written statement. “We are working closely with our Muslim students to affirm their rights and to reassure them that we support their organization and freedom to assemble.”

Talha Shahbaz, then the vice president of the student group, met Rahman at the event. As Karim was finishing his talk on Malcolm X’s legacy, Rahman told Shahbaz that he wanted to know more about the student group. They had briefly attended the same high school in Queens.

Rahman said he wanted to turn his life around and stop using drugs, and said he believed Islam could provide a purpose in life. In the following days, Rahman friended him on Facebook and the two exchanged phone numbers. Shahbaz, a Pakistani who came to the U.S. more three years ago, introduced Rahman to other Muslims.

“He was telling us how he loved Islam and it’s changing him,” said Asad Dandia, who also became friends with Rahman.

Secretly, Rahman was mining his new friends for details about their lives, taking pictures of them when they ate at restaurants and writing down license plates on the orders of the NYPD.

On the NYPD’s instructions, he went to more events at John Jay, including when Siraj Wahhaj spoke in May. Wahhaj, 62, is a prominent but controversial New York imam who has attracted the attention of authorities for years. Prosecutors included his name on a 3 1/2-page list of people they said “may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, though he was never charged. In 2004, the NYPD placed Wahhaj on an internal terrorism watch list and noted: “Political ideology moderately radical and anti-American.”

That evening at John Jay, a friend took a photograph of Wahhaj with a grinning Rahman.

Rahman said he kept an eye on the MSA and used Shahbaz and his friends to facilitate traveling to events organized by the Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society. The society’s annual convention in Hartford, Conn, draws a large number of Muslims and plenty of attention from the NYPD. According to NYPD documents obtained by the AP, the NYPD sent three informants there in 2008 and was keeping tabs on the group’s former president.

Rahman was told to spy on the speakers and collect information. The conference was dubbed “Defending Religious Freedom.” Shahbaz paid Rahman’s travel expenses.

Rahman, who was born in Queens, said he never witnessed any criminal activity or saw anybody do anything wrong.

He said he sometimes intentionally misinterpreted what people had said. For example, Rahman said he would ask people what they thought about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, knowing the subject was inflammatory. It was easy to take statements out of context, he said. Rahman said he wanted to please his NYPD handler, whom he trusted and liked.

“I was trying to get money,” Rahman said. “I was playing the game.”

Rahman said police never discussed the activities of the people he was assigned to target for spying. He said police told him once, “We don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. We just need to be sure.”

On some days, Rahman’s spent hours and covered miles in his undercover role. On Sept. 16, for example, he made his way in the morning to the Al Farooq Mosque in Brooklyn, snapping photographs of an imam and the sign-up sheet for those attending a regular class on Islamic instruction. He also provided their cell phone numbers to the NYPD. That evening he spied on people at Masjid Al-Ansar, also in Brooklyn.

Text messages on his phone showed that Rahman also took pictures last month of people attending the 27th annual Muslim Day Parade in Manhattan. The parade’s grand marshal was New York City Councilman Robert Jackson.

Rahman said he eventually tired of spying on his friends, noting that at times they delivered food to needy Muslim families. He said he once identified another NYPD informant spying on him. He took $200 more from the NYPD and told them he was done as an informant. He said the NYPD offered him more money, which he declined. He told friends on Facebook in early October that he had been a police spy but had quit. He also traded Facebook messages with Shahbaz, admitting he had spied on students at John Jay.

“I was an informant for the NYPD, for a little while, to investigate terrorism,” he wrote on Oct. 2. He said he no longer thought it was right. Perhaps he had been hunting terrorists, he said, “but I doubt it.”

Shahbaz said he forgave Rahman.

“I hated that I was using people to make money,” Rahman said. “I made a mistake.”

The so-called ‘threat of Muslim terrorism’, is nothing more than propaganda, fostered by state institutions and private entities to fund their own personal gain. The emotion of fear is a powerful tool, when the State uses it to persecute innocents, it can only harbour racism, anti-Semitism and even sexism. Such tactics are referred to as entrapment, and seriously impede on the rights of citizens.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Luke 13:33 and Sam Shamoun

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

One of Br. Shabir Ally’s most famous arguments is derived from Luke 13:33, you can see him using it in this debate:

Sam Shamoun did a response to it along with a few other responses to Br. Shabir. Today I’d like to examine Sam’s ‘explanation’ and to analyse his statements, judging to see whether he has or has not rectified this theological conundrum. Sam begins by saying:

Shabir thinks that this verse is a contradiction and even proves that Jesus wasn’t killed:

“Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.”

Shabir assumes that this text clearly contradicts the fact that Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem.

Br. Shabir did not assume, he simply read the verse and utilized it’s clear meaning, for as Jesus allegedly says, “it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem“. Meaning then, that a Prophet can only die in Jerusalem. Sam tries to answer this by stating:

In the first place, Jesus clearly says that he will be killed outside of Jerusalem:

Clearly then, Jesus contradicts his own words. His response doesn’t begin by refuting Br. Shabir’s argument, he actually initiates his explanation by debunking his own God. Brilliant work Sam. He then cites this verse and uses it as evidence that Jesus allegedly said that he would die outside of Jerusalem:

But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, “This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.” And they cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those tenants, and give the vineyard to others.’ When they heard this, they said, ‘God forbid!’” Luke 20:9-16

The tenants refer to the Jewish leaders and the vineyard refers to Jerusalem. In this parable, Jesus says that he, as the beloved Son, will be thrown out of the vineyard and then be killed. To put it another way, Jesus was saying that the Jewish leaders would have him killed outside of Jerusalem.

Now, I’m not sure if Sam really thought this explanation through, or if he is actively working to disprove the veracity of Christianity. There are a number of problems with Sam’s referencing and subsequent use of the aforementioned passage. Namely, that according to the parable the “Jews/ Tenants” would kill the “heir/ Jesus” for the “inheritance” and as a cause of this, the “Jews/ Tenants” would be destroyed. If Jesus came to die and the Jews fulfilled this purpose, according to this parable, God would have to kill the people that He sent to kill His son. Which is a problem, if Jesus came to die and the Jews fulfilled this purpose, why would God be angry at them? Secondly, if the “inheritance” here is the “gift of salvation”, shouldn’t God/ the Owner, be happy that they killed His son?

If I were for a moment to neglect Sam’s incompetence of dismantling his own doctrine, and to accept that Jesus predicts his death, according to Luke 13:33, shouldn’t he be killed in Jerusalem? Therefore this verse contradicts Jesus’ own words and presents severe theological faults with Christianity. Since this is the case, a methodological reinterpretation/ reading of Luke 13:33 must be undertaken to mask this scriptural blunder. Sam continues:

Now we anticipate that Shabir will say that this doesn’t resolve the problem and will wish to say that this only contradicts what Jesus said in Luke 13:33. Does it? Let us read the immediate context and see:

“Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Go away, leave here, for Herod wants to kill You.’ And He said to them, ‘Go and tell that fox, “Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.” Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it! Behold, your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!”’” Luke 13:31-35

Luke 13 references Matthew 23 wherein it reads:

“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. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate.  For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”

According to these passages, the Jews of Jerusalem kill the prophets and those sent to them. Yet, Jesus was not killed by Jews or by those of Jerusalem, but by the hands of Romans, another strange predicament (as Sam later admits, Jesus died by the Gentiles and not the Jews). More interestingly, Jesus allegedly predicts that Jerusalem would welcome him as blessed and as one who has come in the Name of the Lord, yet there is no such realization according to any of the Synoptic gospels, therefore Jesus’ death is inconsistent with this prophecy, as it has yet to be fulfilled. Sam continues:

We can glean from the immediate context that Jesus was addressing the Jews who warned him about Herod’s threat. Jesus responds by basically saying that Herod can’t do anything against him since he has a goal to reach Jerusalem, and once there he will die. Now from this context we can see that Jerusalem stands for the Jewish leaders, in contrast to Herod, who will kill Jesus just as they killed the other prophets. Obviously, Jerusalem didn’t literally kill the prophets but its leaders and people did. This serves to affirm that Jesus’ point was that Herod wouldn’t be the one to condemn him to death, but the members of the Sanhedrin who were in Jerusalem.

According to Sam himself, Jesus was to die in Jerusalem and by the hands of the Jews, which he later disagrees with and argues against in his later discussion. Interestingly Sam then tries to validate his eisegesis by appealing to another false prophecy:

This is reiterated in the Matthaean parallel:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom YOU will kill and crucify, and some YOU will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that ON YOU may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom YOU murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” Matthew 23:29-39

According to Sam’s quote, when Jesus accuses the Pharisees of murdering someone in Jerusalem, they literally killed someone in Jerusalem. That is to say Zechariah, who died within the physical delimitations of Jerusalem. So specific was Jesus’ statement, that he mentions the exact place of murder within Jerusalem, between the sanctuary and the altar:

God’s anger came on Judah and Jerusalem Although the Lord sent prophets to the people to bring them back to him, and though they testified against them, they would not listen. Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper.Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’” But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. – 2 Chronicles 24.

Therefore when Jesus refers to dying in Jerusalem, he is referring to actually being killed within Jerusalem, as he himself states. Sam however, doesn’t realise this and foregoes the mentioning of a physical death within the city itself, instead he meanders off and misapplies the statements of Christ:

What Jesus was basically saying is that he could not be condemned to death by anyone other than the Jewish leaders. Jesus was obviously using Jerusalem as a metaphor for its leaders, personifying the city and blaming it for the bloodshed caused by its people, since the city is being identified with its people, specifically the Sanhedrin.

Sam seems to forget that while the Jews did vote to have Jesus ‘killed’, it was actually Pontius Pilate who accepted their vote (he did not have to) and Jesus himself was not killed by the hands of a single Jew, but by Roman soldiers. It should also be known that Sam emphasises that the city is being identified with its people, the Jews. Yet according to the crucifixion events, no blood was spilled by the Jews themselves, but by outsiders, the Romans, which according to Matthew 23 is a misapplied prophecy, as the previous deaths were literally done by the Jews. Sam then appeals to confirmation bias by running to a commonly used Christian exegesis which he quotes:

As noted Bible expositor John Gill stated:

for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem;
because the great sanhedrim only sat at Jerusalem, to whom it belonged to try and judge a prophet; and if found false, to condemn him, and put him to death; the rule is this;

“they do not judge, neither a tribe, nor a false prophet, nor an high priest, but by the sanhedrim of seventy and one.”

Not but that prophets sometimes perished elsewhere, as John the Baptist in Galilee; but not according to a judicial process, in which way Christ the prophet was to be cut off, nor was it common; instances of this kind were rare, and always in a violent way; and even such as were sentenced to death by the lesser sanhedrim, were brought to Jerusalem, and publicly executed there, whose crimes were of another sort; for so runs the canon;

“they do not put any one to death by the sanhedrim, which is in his city, nor by the sanhedrim in Jabneh; but they bring him to the great, sanhedrim in Jerusalem, and keep him till the feast, and put him to death on a feast day, as it is said (Deuteronomy 17:13) “and all the people shall hear and fear.””

And since Jerusalem was the place where the prophets were usually put to death, …

FOOTNOTES:

F5 Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 1. sect. 5. & T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 2.
F6 Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 4.   (Source)

John Gill’s explanation would work if it is that Zechariah’s death occurred outside of Jerusalem, however the citing by Jesus of Zechariah’s death within the city of Jerusalem, draws a parallel between his alleged death and Zechariah’s. Since this is the case, Gill’s explanation ignores this prophecy and negates, or rather, corrects Jesus’ statement. Therefore Sam, has to choose whether Jesus’ parallel with Zechariah’s death in Jerusalem is accurate or it’s inaccurate and Gill’s exposition is superior to his Lords words.

Jesus essentially affirmed this very fact, namely, that the Sanhedrin would condemn him to death, elsewhere in Luke’s Gospel:

“But He warned them and instructed them not to tell this to anyone, saying, ‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised up on the third day.’” Luke 9:21-22

It is evident that at this point Sam had lost the plot and began to imagine things. This verse does not foretell that the Sanhedrin would condemn Christ to death, rather it says they would reject him. Unless rejection means death, I am quite certain that Sam is making stuff up. Not that I expected any better from him. He continues:

“Then He took the twelve aside and said to them, ‘Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which are written through the prophets about the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be HANDED OVER TO the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again.’” Luke 18:31-33

The Sanhedrin handed Jesus over to the Gentile rulers who then mocked, mistreated, spat, scourged and killed him by crucifixion. Note the process that takes place. The Sanhedrin condemned Jesus as worthy of death, but since they couldn’t kill him themselves they proceeded to hand him over to those who had the authority to do so.

There are several problems with Sam’s explanation:

  • According to the parable about the vineyard, Jesus was to be killed by the tenants, i.e. the Jews, yet Sam concedes that this is not the case and Jesus was actually killed by the Romans.
  • According to the paralleling of Jesus’ life with Zechariah’s, Jesus was to be killed by Jews through the command of a Gentile leader in Jerusalem, rather Sam is saying Jesus was killed by Gentiles through the command of Jews outside of Jerusalem. In other words, he inverts the prediction completely to make it remotely applicable to Christ.
  • According to Jesus’ own words, Jews were to kill him, i.e. the people of Jerusalem in Matthew 23, however as Sam concedes, this is not the case as the Romans (those not from Jerusalem) killed him instead.

Every evidence that Sam has used to bolster the case for the validity of Luke 13:33 has therefore backfired on him, proving his arguments and by consequence, his scripture, to be unreliable, inconsistent and ridiculous. Sam continues:

It is therefore obvious from the preceding that there is no contradiction in the words of Jesus, but only Shabir’s misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he referred to not perishing outside of Jerusalem. Jesus wasn’t using Jerusalem to refer to the city, but to its people, specifically to its leaders who condemned him to die.

Mr. Shamoun’s best conclusion and explanation, is to then correct Jesus’ words. Apparently, since Jesus did not say it, Sam has to say what his God could not, that Jesus wasn’t referring to Jerusalem when he said Jerusalem, but to the people of Jerusalem. This presents several problems:

  1. Why didn’t Jesus say that?
  2. If that is the case, why did Jesus say ‘Jerusalem’ and specify the Jews of ‘Jerusalem’ in Matthew 23?
  3. Lastly, those who killed Jesus were Romans, not Jews.

Sam, understanding that he has exhausted all laughable excuses, then proceeds to make one last ditch effort. Apparently ‘Jerusalem’, does not mean Jerusalem. According to Sam, ‘Jerusalem’, means, ‘a couple days distance from Jerusalem’, or in other words, Jerusalem is supposed to mean, ‘not Jerusalem’:

But even if we were to assume that Jesus was referring to the city, and not to its leadership, Shabir still has no case. As we noted, Jesus’ statements are made in a particular context, standing in Galilee, being informed by others about Herod’s intention of killing him, and says he must first go to Jerusalem. That is his purpose, and not even Herod will keep him from getting to Jerusalem and being put on trial there. Jesus isn’t talking about his exact execution place. From the perspective of standing in Galilee, in a different province, several days journey away from Jerusalem, just outside the city wall was still Jerusalem. Moreover, every city always has some land around it that belongs to the city.

Jesus draws a parallel between him and Zechariah. Jesus specifies the exact place of Zechariah’s death in Jerusalem, for which he then condemns the Jews for. Strangely, Sam is saying that Jesus did not specify his exact dying place. Yet Jesus not only explicitly mentions ‘Jerusalem’, he does so more than once and in the one event he drew a parallel, the very story he narrates is of a death within Jerusalem. Therefore Sam’s case has been proven to be inconsistent by Jesus himself. He continues:

Finally, that a text such as Luke 13:33 remains intact within the Holy Bible is an argument for the Scriptures’ veracity. It shows that Christian scribes, for the most part, tried to preserve the Scriptures as best as they could, no matter what difficulties a text may have posed to their theology and understanding.

Sam still has not clarified why Jesus, a prophet, could have died outside of Jerusalem, when he (Jesus) clearly indicated otherwise. Sam’s attempt to redefine, reinterpret and correct his God’s words are not only laughable, but this demonstrates that this is a difficulty of which the Christian faith cannot cope. Sam’s explanations can therefore be summarized as:

  • Jerusalem does not mean Jerusalem but outside of Jerusalem.
  • Death by the Jews does not mean ‘death by the Jews’, but by gentiles.
  • God kills the people for killing the Son which He sent to get killed.

None of these answer the theological conundrum of Jesus’ statement being wrong/ the Bible having a scriptural problem, but rather Sam’s explanation exacerbates the problems of the Christian text and the difficulties associated with answering Luke 13:33.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

Thousands of Children Tortured by Christian Schools in Switzerland

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A recent report detailing boarding school abuse by Christian teachers has caused an uproar in Switzerland. According to the report, the children faced ‘torture’ and ‘sadistic like’ punishments for over 4 decades. Yahoo (NZ) reports:

Thousands of children fell victim to violence and abuse in Catholic boarding schools in Switzerland up until the 1970s, according to a recent study decrying “sadistic” practices resembling “torture”. The former student, whose name was not given, was one of around 50 former boarders at 15 different boarding schools in Lucerne between 1930 and 1970 who in chilling detail testified to their experiences in a report ordered by the canton. “Many boarding school children long felt guilty over the experiences they had. Some managed to move on, others failed and some committed suicide,” said Furrer, who along with two colleagues had spent a year and a half delving into the murky past of these establishments.

Although child sexual abuse is common among Christian preachers, the author of report states that they did not expect to find such a large scale of child sexual abuse. One Punishment known as waterboarding (infamously used by the CIA for torture) was used to punish innocent children for wetting their beds or being noisy by nuns:

Some cases of violence and sexual abuse were already known, he told AFP, but “we were not expecting it to be this large-scale.” When a child was too noisy or wet the bed, the nuns running the schools used cruel punishments like “pushing small children’s heads under water,” Furrer said, comparing the practice to “waterboarding”, a controversial interrogation technique broadly considered to equate to torture. The report of around 100 pages, seen by AFP, details the abuses, hardships and humiliations suffered by the Swiss boarding school students, many of whom had been taken from their poor families and placed there by authorities.

The children also faced hunger, to the extent that almost all of them went hungry and thirsty. Attempting to have a sip of water while being extremely thirsty invoked the wrath of the Christian teachers:

Going without food was commonplace, one of the former boarders recalled. “I cannot remember anyone who wasn’t hungry. Basically everyone was hungry,” he said. Children who tried to have a sip of water in between meals were also harshly dealt with, according to the report. “If someone bent over a faucet to drink, his head would be pushed down so his face hit the faucet,” another former student testified. “The degree of punishment and abuse clearly went well beyond what was admitted to at the time,” according to the study, which points out that some teachers showed “sadistic” tendencies and used practices “close to torture,” including punching or kicking children in the face.

Is this another case of no true scotsman, or will Christendom apologize for the vast amount of child abuse that kids worldwide have had to face?

wa Allaahu ‘Alam,
and God knows best.

10’s of Thousands of Pakistanis Protest For Malala Yousafzai

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Here’s something that David Wood, Pamela Geller and Ali Sina won’t show you. Tens of thousands of Muslim Pakistanis gathered to show support for Malala Yousafzai in numerous protests throughout Pakistan. The US based Miama Herald Newspaper says:

Pakistanis have held rallies for Malala throughout the country, but most have only numbered a few hundred people. The largest show of support by far occurred Sunday when tens of thousands of people held a demonstration in the southern party city of Karachi organized by the most powerful political party in the city, the Muttahida Quami Movement.

As previously mentioned on my last article on this issue, Pakistan’s schools, Masjids and various state institutions also held a ‘Day of Prayer’, for Malala Yousafzai according to the UK based BBC News Network:

On Friday, school children dedicated prayers to her recovery in morning assemblies and she was also remembered during weekly prayers at mosques across the country. Many prayer leaders condemned the attack, including the chief cleric of Pakistan’s largest mosque, Shahi Masjid, in Lahore. He called the young activist an “ambassador of peace and knowledge’”. Schools in the Swat Valley closed on Wednesday – the day after the shooting – in protest at the attack. Rallies have also been held in Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore, Multan as well as in Malala’s hometown of Mingora.
If you still believe that Malala’s shooting is endorsed by Islam, I suggest you sincerely read my other article, “Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban“, for a comprehensive understanding of Islam and its view on educating women, as well as the silence of American Christians and Humanitarian organizations of the deaths of a US bomb attack on a school which massacred 69 children.
wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Christian Missionaries Paying Muslims to Convert in Syrian Refugee Camps

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This Muslim sister, from a Syrian refugee camp, details how the Christian missionaries are flooding the camps with Christian literature and offering to pay rent, buy clothes and food if the Muslims take the Bibles and learn them. They are attempting to pay Muslims to read their Bible to convert them, but it isn’t working thus far, this young sister from Syria explains:

May Allaah protect the Muslims from the Shayataan Bashar al Alawi and from the Missionaries, Ameen.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Saudi Mother Pardons Son’s Murderer

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In one of the most heart wrenching stories of the year. A Muslim Saudi woman, has forgiven her son’s murderer and by that act has saved the murderer from execution or any form of punishment by the state. The woman who has no house of her own and lives with her three orphaned daughters said:

Marzooghah Al-Blewi of Tabuk refused an offer of property and millions of riyals to pardon the man who took her son’s life more than two years ago.

Instead, in a dramatic scene after the sentencing in court, the mother of the victim asked to see her son’s murderer after which she said that she forgave him without conditions. This was documented in the presence of the judge, and the grateful young man asked the woman to accept him as her son to serve her for the rest of her life.

The victim’s mother said that she could not forget the night when her 19-year-old son Suhail was murdered, while she was waiting for him to drive her to visit some relatives.

She accepted the matter as fate and test of her patience from God. She said the killer’s family had constantly contacted her offering property and money and seeking forgiveness to spare their son from execution.

She said she resides in Prince Sultan Charitable Housing with her three orphaned daughters, one of whom is completely paralyzed, and her 80-year-old father who is also partially paralyzed.

They live on her deceased husband’s pension of SR2,000 in addition to SR1,000 from social insurance. She forgave her son’s killer seeking God’s recompense.

The perpetrator’s father, Ayed Al-Blewi, spoke of the many attempts to have the distraught mother drop the charges by offering SR2 million and his property, but she refused many times, until that day in court.

He offered his sincere thanks to her and to the relatives of the deceased.

Such an act due to the laws of Islam and to the piety that Islam instills in us, allows for such acts of great kindness to occur. This news most certainly demonstrates the mercy of Islam and the compassion it grows within us, for the betterment of society. You can read the article at its original source, The Saudi Gazette. It is most certain that you will not see this story on David Wood’s website, Pamela Geller’s website, or Ali Sina’s website, yet this is one law (forgiveness of murderers), that is found in Shari’a law and only in Shari’a law.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

iERA Inspires Young and Old to Do Da’wah

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Say Masha Allaah! Br. Haroon Qureishi of iERA’s Mission Da’wah, posted these cute photos yesterday of a little Muslim girl in hijab enthusiastic about giving da’wah:

The jersey she’s wearing is as big as she is. This is probably one of the most sincere and adorable acts of Iman that I have ever witnessed. I’ve linked to their Mission Da’wah site above and I pray that you check it out and spread the link insha Allaah. If this little angel can do da’wah, what’s holding you back from doing so?

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Samuel Green, Islam and Paedophilia

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Answering Muslims and Acts17 are Christian Apologetics Ministries that are infamous for creating propaganda against Islam. David Wood, Anthony Rogers and Samuel Green are what I would consider to be the main proponents of these organization’s workings. Yet, I was thrown off balance by a shocking admission by Samuel Green via a Facebook article written by Calling Christian’s team member, Br. Azhan Ahmed on the topic of Muhammad [saws] and Paedophilia:

That’s a revelation by itself. Samuel Green openly disagrees with the views of David Wood, Sam Shamoun, and the rest of the Answering Muslism team, Acts17 team and the Answering Islam team. Samuel Green is known for his debates against numerous Muslim Da’ees in Australia and he is also known for associating with missionary groups organized for the sole purpose of Ministering to Muslims. Therefore, when he reneges on a view not only held by his closest Missionary friends, but by 3 other organizations he’s involved with, that speaks volumes. We look forward to Samuel Green’s further discussion on this revealing news, we also look forward to David Wood’s take on one of his writers disagreeing with what is considered to be a standard belief among his peers.

Does this represent dissension among the ranks of Answering Muslims and Answering Islam? Would Samuel Green be publicly refuted by his peers, or would he be forced to recant such statements? I can’t say what will happen, but this is overall good news for Islamic da’wah.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

A Christian’s Love for Muslims

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I’m sure we’ve all heard that emotional mumbo jumbo about ‘love’ from our Christian friends. That Muslims don’t have a God that loves them, that Muslims  don’t know what love is, that Islam is a religion void of love, that we Muslims need to embrace Christianity to truly understand and know what love is. We’ve all seen Christians preach that whole, ‘turn the other cheek’ mantra, too bad I felt too much Christian love from this group of Christians discussing Islam:

I’m not exactly sure where the Qur’an says that we have to convert the world or kill everyone in the world, perhaps someone who agrees with Clark can show me. Feel free to post your response in the comments section and I’d address the claim. Let’s return to our pal’s comments now. Strangely enough, our friend Clark makes it clear that he rather buy a gun, than debate/ discuss his concerns with Muslims. I’m thinking that this is the “shoot first, ask questions later”, kind of mentality.  If it isn’t enough to just buy a gun, our friend Clark has a brilliant master plan to bring peace and stability to the world. Kidnap a few Muslims, have them dig their graves, kill them and throw a pig’s carcass in their just for the heck of it. Just to be sure that they got the message, shout at their graves and let them know that they are not allowed to commit any future terrorist acts. At the end, Clark turns into some sort of a philosopher and decides that killing pigs and not humans may be a bad thing. I did some digging and well, Clark is just about Christian as they come:

Our loving Christian friend Clark, isn’t alone. He’s got a pal that also shares similar views:

I’m not sure that I can add much commentary to these images, it’s pretty clear to me that we’re dealing with persons who are actively discussing and intending to act violently towards Muslims. Their mentality is absolutely horrendous and quite shocking to say the least. Normally you’d expect folks who are discussing these things to do so privately, but to make such comments public and to share them among large groups of persons is disturbing to say the least. I can’t begin to imagine the outrage if Muslims had said this about Christians or Jews! I did some further digging and as it turns out, our buddy Louis supports Pamela Geller, the infamous Islamophobe who incited the Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks against Muslims and Muslim friendly groups in Norway.

It should be noted that Christian Missionaries, David Wood and Sam Shamoun both support and promote Geller’s views. A quick look at David Wood’s Answering Muslims website shows numerous videos of Pamela. Two peas in a pod. Similar to the self declared “Crusader”, Anders not only discussed killing Muslims online, but he shared many of the same views as our friends Clark and Louis. If this trend is anything to base our suspicions on, we’re looking at persons intent on mass murdering Muslims and those who sympathize with Muslims, in the name of their Lord, Christ.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

Malala Yousafzai and the Taliban

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Some of you should recognize the stylishly clad gentleman in the top left of the above photo. If you don’t, then let me remind you that he is none other than esteemed, famed, patriotic Mr. Ronald Reagan, a former President of the United States. In his company are members of the infamous ‘Taliban’ of Afghanistan during a meeting in the White House.  It isn’t a secret that the United States armed and trained the Taliban militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In fact, this Reuters report indicates that the Taliban still had ‘stinger rockets’ that were funded and supplied by Reagan himself. Yet, even today according to this Guardian UK’s article, most Afghanis, including well known politicians and those of higher authority, they believe that the US continues to fund the Taliban:

One political scientist, who works as an advisor to US agencies in the north of the country, recounts how people fear the continuing influence of the warlords, illustrating his point with descriptions of violence and corruption that extends into the realms of banking, government and trade. Afghans hate these warlords, he says, but the US wants them kept in place. “If they were removed, and competent and clean people brought in, we would bring in revenues of our own. We could have our own economy, and demand foreign investment with transparency. We would have a true army, to protect us and serve Afghanistan.”

It’s also well known that American paid construction contracts, actually fund the Taliban. According to this Global Post US’ article, most contractors actually plan deals and negotiate contracts with the members of the rebel group. Sometimes even agreeing to let them blow up bridges, only to attain a new contract to rebuild, siphoning off more US funds to the Taliban. Former Afghani-Taliban envoy to the US, Yale educated – Sayyid  Rahmatullah Hashimi has even spoken on US policies during a lecture at the University of Southern California, where he explained that the Taliban was not opposed to the education of girls:

According to him, the Afghani state had a majority Muslim population and thus segregated education was on their agenda. While they were busy building girl’s schools, UN interests removed much needed funding, inclusive of funds needed to develop and maintain agricultural lands. Thus, when it comes to the issue of Malala Yousafzai, many questions need to be asked. If the Taliban are supposed to be representing Islam or Prophet Muhammad [saws], then shouldn’t they teach women?

Narrated Abu Said: A woman came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Men (only) benefit by your teachings, so please devote to us from (some of) your time, a day on which we may come to you so that you may teach us of what Allah has taught you.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Gather on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a place.” They gathered and Allah’s Apostle came to them and taught them of what Allah had taught him. – Sahih al Bukhari, Book #92, Hadith #413.

It should be noted that we can find in excess of 600 Ahadith from ‘Aisha [ra], the Prophet’s  [saws] wife, where either she is teaching or explaining some element of Islam to men and women. Therefore, if we see that the Prophet [saws] and his wife taught women, then can anyone who believes that Islam commands that women are not to be taught or educated, demonstrate such a belief from the Qur’an or Hadith corpus? Let’s continue with just one or two further examples of women and education in Islam.

  • Khabbab (may Allaah be pleased with her), taught the Qur’an, both to Fatima – may Allaah be pleased with her (‘Umar bin Al Khattab’s sister), and her husband, Sa’id bin Zaid. – Ibn Ishaq’s, “As Siyar wa al Maghazi”, ed. by Zakkar, pp. 181 – 184.
  • The very first revealed verse of the Qur’an commands all Muslims, not just men, to read: “اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ” – “Read in the name of your Lord who created“.

If Malala Yousafzai’s killing is appropriate according to Islam law, Qur’an or Ahadith, would anyone be able to demonstrate this for me? Most certainly not. This leads us to another question, why the hypocrisy? Pakistan became outraged, holding national protests and requests for justice, where even a national Day of Prayer was observed for her benefit:

On Friday, school children dedicated prayers to her recovery in morning assemblies and she was also remembered during weekly prayers at mosques across the country. Many prayer leaders condemned the attack, including the chief cleric of Pakistan’s largest mosque, Shahi Masjid, in Lahore. He called the young activist an “ambassador of peace and knowledge'”. Schools in the Swat Valley closed on Wednesday – the day after the shooting – in protest at the attack. Rallies have also been held in Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore, Multan as well as in Malala’s hometown of Mingora.

I mentioned hypocrisy above, because I find it so strange, that Missionaries, TV Pundits, Mainstream Media, are all condemning this act of a girl wanting to learn and being shot for it. Yet when American forces murdered 69 children by bombing a school, where was the outrage?

A week after the attack, a local English newspaper published the names and home villages of 80 victims. Sixty-nine were reported as children aged 17 or under. According to the paper’s sources,

It was claimed that ‘one of the deceased was only seven-year old, three were eight, three nine, one was 10, four were 11, four were 12, eight were 13, six were 14, nine were 15, 19 were 16, 12 were 17, three were 18, three were 19 and only two were 21-years old’. Yusufzai is adamant that the attack was the work of the CIA: “I am absolutely confident, 100 per cent, that this was carried out by US drones, based on witnesses at the time and the subsequent comments of [Pakistani] government officials.” The US Embassy in Islamabad declined to comment on the case when offered the opportunity by the Bureau and The Express Tribune.

Where were the protests? Why didn’t America hold a national day of prayer? Why should Muslims be the only ones guilty when children are attacked for seeking an education, but when the US strikes a school and murders 69 children, we hear nothing? Hypocrisy is rife among those who criticise Islam, who trade one girl’s life for 69 dead children.

wa Allaahu Alam,
and Allaah knows best.

 

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »