Category Archives: Other Speakers

Sam & John: Partners in Fraud?

In a recent article, I brought to light claims by Sam Shamoun about theft and fraud ongoing at the Trinity Channel. I indicated that Sam’s friend, Jonathan McLatchie would know whether Sam was lying about his own Christian brothers and sisters, or if Sam was being truthful. The consequences of which project badly on both Sam and Jonathan. As it turns out, my article raised questions that many in the interfaith community have been bothered about.

cc-2016-jm-thief

Having published my article merely asking about Sam’s statements, in a fit of rage, Jonthan McLatchie, rather than clear the air on his position on this serious issue, has decided to end communication on this and similar topics with me. The question needs to be asked, if Jonathan and his friend, mentor and partner in….God knows what…are not bothered by the consequences of Sam’s claims, then why the sudden disconnect? Their silence says more than they think.

and God knows best.

Christian Apologists Disagree on God’s Real Name

Many people are familiar with Dr. Michael Brown and Matt Slick of CARM. They are after all, Christian apologists. Knowing God’s name is a pretty straightforward topic, not so for Christianity. Matt Slick writes:

For people to say that Jesus’ real name is Yashua or Yahusha or Yahushua, etc., is Jesus’ real name is just a statement of pushing an agenda and not believing the New Testament text.

Interestingly, Dr. Michael Brown accuses Matt of being wrong on knowing the true name of God. In a discussion with Br. Mustafa Sahin of Australia, Browns says:

cc-2016-mb-mattisincorrectaboutjesus

What can we learn from this? Brown considers people like Matt Slick who argues that Jesus is God’s real name are incorrect and wasting their time. On the other hand, Matt considers people like Dr. Michael Brown who argue that Jesus isn’t God’s real name are pushing an agenda and not believing in the New Testament text.

The question is, since Dr. Michael Brown rejects that Jesus is God’s real name, is Matt Slick correct in referring to him as a disbeliever in the New Testament?

and God knows best.

Quick Responses to Claims About the Eternal Word of God

I’ve been busy the past few days and had not noticed that Br. Yahya Snow published an article and created a video about me. The article can be read here and concerns debate challenges and the glib behaviour of some missionaries.Br. Yahya states:

Now I must say, it’s curious to see Jonathan angle for a debate with Yusuf Bux after he intimated Yusuf’s arguments are dated and weak. Admittedly, I do have reservations about some of the arguments that do come out of SA. Nevertheless, the point here is why would Jonathan decide to target Yusuf for a debate while Jonathan continually avoids Ijaz Ahmad’s debate challenges. Ijaz is a hardened apologist and debater who chooses to involve himself in technical discussions about Christian theology – it’s what he specialises in.

You see, Jonathan has come off really poorly in his interactions with experienced Muslim apologists. He struggled in his debate with Shabir Ally and struggled in his debate with Yusuf Ismail. Ijaz Ahmad and myself have corrected him and refuted him on many points over the last few months – at times on some very basic stuff highlighting his inability in dialogue with Muslims who are more experienced and aware apologetically.

We’ve corrected Jonathan McLatchie a number of times, here are some examples:

  1. Jonathan rejected the belief that God in the Bible literally inscribed revelation.
  2. Jonathan argued that Br. Khalid Yasin was a white man.
  3. Jonathan claimed that nowhere in the Qur’an does Allah say: I am God Worship me.
  4. Jonathan forgot how debates work.

I actually have quite a couple more screenshots of never before released mistakes by Jonathan. However, they will not be posted. There’s a difference between correcting a public figure and caricaturing someone, and I do not want to cross that line. On the other hand, Br. Yahya also produced a video with me responding to some missionary claims regarding the speech of God, the preservation of the Qur’an and of Jesus’s nature:

I’m not particularly fond of seeing my name and face mentioned this much. While I am thankful for the efforts many brothers have made, it’s still a bit unsettling to see my face and name everywhere. In this case though, it is a video debate and so there’s no choice but to show my face. I am appreciative of Br. Yahya’s comments regarding me and for the video he’s made. I pray that many can benefit from the work that our little community of Muslim apologists, bloggers and du’at do.

and Allah knows best.

 

Tony Costa – Pretending to Know Arabic

cc-2016-tc-portrait

Tony Costa

The Claims

The missionary Tony Costa recently responded to one of my articles correcting him on being dishonest about the Arabic language. What is the problem? Tony is claiming that the feminine form of أله is لت. He says:

In a commentary piece where I was reviewing a debate I had with my good friend Sadat Anwar I spoke about the daughters of Allah in the Qur’an 53:19-20. I then made this statement, “Al-Lat is actually the feminine form of ‘Al-ilah’ or ‘Allah’”

I would like to mention that I have linked to Tony’s article and I am quoting what he says so as to demonstrate to him that there is no sleight of hand at work, I’m using his words against him. In the above quote, he is making a claim about the Arabic language. He then goes on to say:

I have never pretended to know the Arabic language, nor did I make such a claim. In fact I openly admitted in my debate with Sadat Anwar that I am presently learning and studying Arabic.

How is it, that he says in one sentence he made a claim and statement about the Arabic language, and then in another he claims that he did not make such a claim? The problem is that Tony freely admits he does not know the Arabic language, yet is insistent that his derivation of the word أله in its female form is لت. This is grammatically impossible. I have explained this to Tony, yet he insists he is correct. He goes on to state:

Why would I give the morphology of the term أله when I never addressed the forms of words in Arabic?

Let’s establish some facts:

  1. Tony claims he does not know the Arabic language.
  2. Tony admits he made a claim about words in the Arabic language.
  3. Tony admits he made claims about words in the Arabic language for which he does not know the morphology of the words themselves.

In other words, someone ignorant about the Arabic language is making a claim about the Arabic language, without being able to qualify his claim using the Arabic language. To prove that he is correct, Tony then copy-pasted a few quotes from a Google Search Result he sent me via e-mail. Yes. Tony insists he is correct because he Googled a question and sent me the results. He did this in an e-mail thread with Dr. Shabir Ally, Dr. James White, Br. Yusuf Ismail, Br. Yahya Snow, Br. Yusuf Bux, Br. Paul Williams, and I corrected him in this e-mail thread. Several others corrected him and he continued to insist that he did not need to know the Arabic language to make claims about the Arabic language. As such, Tony is guilty of a number of fallacies.

The Fallacies

Special Pleading

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.

After showing Tony that he was wrong in the Arabic language using Arabic lexicons, Arabic Bibles and explaining basic Arabic grammatical rules, Tony now insists he never meant to address the derivations of the word أله in Arabic, he only meant to do so in English. The problem here is that أله is not an English word, it’s an Arabic word.

Appeal to Authority

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

Tony claims that his quotes in English prove his claim. Yet, this is not the case. None of these quotes demonstrate how they derive لت from أله. Just because they claim they have, does not make it true. To qualify this as true, all Tony has to do is show the derivation. Since he is unable to do that, and I have contradicted this claim by actually providing the female form, the rules of logic (proof by contradiction) render Tony wrong.

Appeal to Authority

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.

Seven people repeating a false claim, does not make it true. It makes it wrong each and every time it is repeated. I can also go on Google and claim that at the Council of Nicaea the canon of the New Testament was decided. I can provide hundreds of quotes claiming this. Yet it isn’t true. This is common sense for some of us, not all of us.

The Correction

To begin with, in the Arabic language you derive the forms of a word using its root. This is known as morphology or Sarf (صرف). It is grammatically impossible to derive لت from أله. As previously mentioned in my original article, it’s akin to trying to derive oranges from the word range. This is grammatically impossible. Oranges comes from orange. Oranges does not come from range. This is abecedarian stuff, but Tony does not seem to grasp this concept. We therefore ask the question, what do the Arabic Bibles claim the feminine form of أله is? Millions of Arabic Christians and Jews, use the SVD Arabic Bible. All Tony has to do is go to an Arabic Bible and see what the feminine form of أله is. The Arabic Bibles do not say لت, they say إلهة. See the following examples (emphasis is mine own):

فَذَهَبَ سُلَيْمَانُ وَرَاءَ عَشْتُورَثَ إِلَهَةِ الصَّيْدُونِيِّينَ وَمَلْكُومَ رِجْسِ الْعَمُّونِيِّينَ.
1 Kings 11:5.

لأَنَّهُمْ تَرَكُونِي وَسَجَدُوا لِعَشْتُورَثَ إِلَهَةُ الصَّيْدُونِيِّينَ وَلِكَمُوشَ إِلَهِ الْمُوآبِيِّينَ وَلِمَلْكُومَ إِلَهِ بَنِي عَمُّونَ، وَلَمْ يَسْلُكُوا فِي طُرُقِي لِيَعْمَلُوا الْمُسْتَقِيمَ فِي عَيْنَيَّ وَفَرَائِضِي وَأَحْكَامِي كَدَاوُدَ أَبِيهِ.
1 Kings 11:33.

لأَنَّكُمْ أَتَيْتُمْ بِهَذَيْنِ الرَّجُلَيْنِ وَهُمَا لَيْسَا سَارِقَيْ هَيَاكِلَ وَلاَ مُجَدِّفَيْنِ عَلَى إِلَهَتِكُمْ.
Acts 19:37.

Tony, this is known as proof by contradiction. I did not need to open Google to qualify my claims as you did, I simply went to the Arabic Bible that the Coptic Church uses. Tony therefore claims that he is correct, while the Coptic Church, the Smith and Van Dyke Arabic Bible and the American Bible Society with its translation committees spanning more than 100 years are all wrong. I therefore call upon Tony to contact the Coptic Church and the American Bible Society and let them both know that their Bibles have an error in their scriptures which they have not noticed for over 100 years, but that he, a man who does not know the Arabic language is correct.

To further correct Tony, here are some lexicons. Tony, lexicons explain the roots of words, their derivations and their meanings. They are considered authorities on language. I am quite shocked that you do not know this, but I am here to help you.

Lanes Lexicon

ilah lanes lexicon1.png

ilah lanes lexicon2

This is from page 82 of Lane’s lexicon, Tony would do well to read the last line. The plural of أله is إلهة. Next we go to لت:

lat lanes lexicon1

lat lanes lexicon2

لت has nothing to do with أله. These are two different root words. Let’s say لت is A and أله is B. Tony is trying to derive A from B, yet A and B are two root words. They are not derivatives of each other, they are root words from which their own derivatives can be formed. They have nothing to do with each other. One does not come from the other, A is not B and B is not A. A does not come from B and B does not come from A. It should be noted that these two words are 2649 pages apart, they literally have no connection with each other. If one was derived from the other, why are neither included in each other’s lexical derivatives? Next, we go to the Hans-Wehr dictionary.

Hans-Wehr

hans wehr ilah1

Again, another authority in the Arabic language, in Arabic, showing the derivatives/ morphology of the words themselves disagrees with Tony. Anyone interested in seeing the many more lexicons and dictionaries that discredit, disagree and disavow Tony Costa can click here.

Ibn Kathir

Tony makes the mistake of attributing a quote to Ibn Kathir, rather the quote literally says who it is from. Ibn Jarir. I asked Tony during our email discourse if he knew who Ibn Jarir was. Tony did not respond to that question. This is basic comprehension skills, it is not Ibn Kathir who makes the statement it is Ibn Jarir (Source):

و كانوا قد اشتقوا اسمها من اسم الله فقالوا الات

“They derived Al-Lat’s name from Allah’s Name, and made it feminine. Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him. It was reported that Al-Lat is pronounced Al-Lat because, according to `Abdullah bin `Abbas, Mujahid, and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, Al-Lat was a man who used to mix Sawiq (a kind of barley mash) with water for the pilgrims during the time of Jahiliyyah. When he died, they remained next to his grave and worshipped him.”

Common sense is not common. How did they derive Al-Lat from Allah? By using a name of similar pronunciation as is stated above in Lane’s lexicon, page 2649:

“Some say that the ت is originally without tashdeed, and to denote the feminine gender: Ks used to pronounce the word in a case of pause اللاة : and Aboo Ishak says, that this is agreeable with analogy…”

They didn’t derive it from using the word for God in Arabic: أله  , they derived it by using the word لت in its form of اللاة because they sounded similar to each other. Even the narrator himself rebuffs the claim by saying:

“Allah is far removed from what they ascribe to Him.”

In other words, Tony is using  quote he does not understand, and once put into context, it completely refutes his accusations en toto.

Conclusion 

It has been proven, using basic Arabic grammar rules, Arabic lexicons, Arabic dictionaries, Arabic Bibles, the Coptic Church’s Bible and from Arab historians, that لت is impossible to get from أله. I therefore challenge Tony to eight (8) things:

  1. Using the word أله, derive the word لت.
  2. Using any Arabic source to qualify #1.
  3. To explain what grammatical rules he used to prove #1.
  4. To explain how he used the root of one word, to derive root of another completely unrelated word.
  5. To contact the Coptic Church and let them know they have got the wrong word in their Bibles.
  6. To contact the American Bible Society and let them know they have translated a word incorrectly for over 100 years and that their translation committees comprising of experts in the Arabic language have got it wrong because you found some quotes in English on Google.
  7. To explain تاء التأنيث of the noun لت.
  8. To explain where the أ and the ه disappeared when using #7.

Challenge 

I also challenge Dr. Tony Costa to a public debate in Toronto on any topic of his choosing. It is most likely that he will not respond to this challenge, as much as he will never concede his ignorance of the Arabic language led him to commit an error so embarrassing that even Arabic speaking children can tell him he’s wrong.

Second Challenge

A former Maronite Christian from Lebanon is willing to talk with Tony and explain to him why he’s wrong and why he is embarrassing himself. Tony can send me an e-mail to be put in contact with this person.

Lessons Learned

Tony accuses me of raising irrelevant arguments in responding to him. This is problematic because Tony conceded he does not know the Arabic language, therefore on what basis does he rationalize my corrections of him as being irrelevant? In any language, if we are discussing a word or term used, it is impossible to discuss its meaning, its application and its context without understanding the word itself. Especially in Arabic, we can only know the meaning of a word by going to its root, which is why Sarf (صرف) is one of the first things taught in basic Arabic. Tony sees me correcting him as an attack on his person. I want to make it clear that I am not attacking Tony in any way, however, he did make claims and I am dutifully responding to those claims. It is impossible to discuss one’s claim without first providing context. Tony is the one who made the claim in an e-mail chain, and therefore he is the one who is responded to. If Jack or Jill or Paul made such a claim, I’d also be responding to them.

One of the more disappointing realizations to have arised out of this, is that Tony admits that he is making a claim he does not understand. All he knows, is to repeat that someone has claimed al-Lat is from Allah. He does not know, nor does he care to know how or if al-Lat is derived from Allah. For an academic, he is setting a very low standard for scholarship. He is simply making a claim he does not understand and when asked to explain the claim rather than repeating it, he immediately claims he is being attacked. I’m sorry Tony but that cop-out does not work on me. I am holding you to the standard of an academic, as someone with a PhD. I demand of you the kind of scholarship that your title should befit, not the kind of scholarship that is beholden to Google Searches and parroting incorrect claims incessantly. 

Therefore, I call upon Tony to apologize for his blatant dishonesty, insults and recalcitrance. Perhaps what is most disappointing is that Tony decided to title his article by referencing my illness. He seems to take it as a joke. To me, it is not a joke. Tony’s ignorance did send me to the hospital due to my frail state. It’s no use to throw a prayer into the end of his article, after having disparaged my character and my illness in some attempt to justify his absolutely fraudulent claims about the Arabic language. In the same breath that he chastised Br. Yusuf Ismail regarding a Koine grammatical rule, he needs to also rebuke himself for his dishonesty. In the end, I forgive Tony for mocking my illness, after all, he is human.

Notified Tony of this Post and of its Challenges to Him

cc-2016-tc-commentonarticle

All I Have Left to Say is –

cc-2016-tc-micdrop

and Allah knows best.

Missionary Mishap: Jonathan McLatchie & Sam Shamoun Target Dr. Shabir Ally

I write this with extreme disappointment and sadness. A few months ago, Jonathan broke unto the Muslim-Christian interfaith debate scene. In his debate with Dr. Shabir he was respectful and it looked as if Christian apologetics had finally moved beyond the vitriol of Sam Shamoun and David Wood. Unfortunately, Jonathan has fallen quite far in the months following the debate. Instead of moving Christian apologetics into the future, he’s joined hands with Sam and has even begun advertising joint events with himself and Sam!

cc-2016-jm-shamounclass

Jonathan’s friend and mentor, Sam Shamoun recently made these comments on Facebook about our beloved brother in Islam, and teacher, Dr. Shabir Ally:

You mean when I demolished and screwed Shabir, your p*******e prophet and your demon you call Allah Shabir has been passing gas every night just like your satan called Allah does according to your prophet. And if you have a problem with praising oneself then that means you just condemned Muhammad and his satan since no one loved to be praised more than them.

I have censored one of the insults, as this is a website that tries to cater for all ages. I apologize for having to quote Sam’s curses and abuses, but this is the kind of person that Jonathan McLatchie endorses as true Christian scholarship, someone he is not only willing to work with, but someone he is willing to promote and hold classes with. In an email dated Friday 19th February, 2016, in which some 20+ Muslim and Christian debaters and preachers were tagged, Jonathan was asked to distance himself from Shamoun’s curses, abuses and insults of the Islamic Prophet, of God and of Dr. Shabir. Jonathan responded by saying:

my personal dealings with Sam are not your concern. I am accountable to God, not to you or anyone else.

This is quite shocking from someone who claims to want to have civil and professional dialogue with Muslims about interfaith topics. Not only did he not condemn Sam’s curses, abuses and insults, he refused to distance himself from Sam’s behaviour. How can Jonathan claim to be civil and professional, when he not only works with someone with such hatred and despotic behaviour, he even advertises him as someone to learn from! This is quite absurd to be honest. Jonathan dreams of once again sharing a stage with our esteemed teacher, Dr. Shabir, and yet advocates on behalf of someone who publicly curses, abuses and insults Dr. Shabir. This is quite underhanded behaviour, two-faced behaviour, deceptive behaviour.

Just how low is Jonathan willing to go?

and God knows best.

Jesus, the Fake Jihadis & Evangelical Christians

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

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

jesus jihadis

The book’s description is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

and God knows best.

Islamophobia and Dishonesty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ll link the video here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »