Tag Archives: islam

Exclusive: Muslim Immigrant Voting Plan to Change Laws in America

EXCLUSIVE – Recent investigations by major media outlets have exposed a massive conspiracy by American-born Muslims and immigrant Muslims to change laws in the United States of America. Several news agencies have indicated that the number of Muslim voters continue to increase each election cycle, with the number reaching a staggering one million voters. The US Council of Muslim Organizations, a well-known globally aligned Muslim group in the US, has publicly admitted to this ongoing scheme:

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, an umbrella group of two dozen Muslim advocacy organizations, said its yearlong “One Million Voters” campaign had surpassed its target, more than doubling the number of registered Muslim voters in America since the 2012 presidential election.

“We believe we’ve exceeded the one million mark,” said Oussama Jammal, secretary general of the group. “We’ve been mobilizing the community with voter registrations at mosques, schools and community events. That’s how we were able to make a difference this year.” – VOA News.

vote1

Muslims Voting

This umbrella Muslim organization operates two dozen Muslim lobbying groups that have drastically increased the rate of eligible Muslim voters in the USA. They freely admit to having doubled the number of Muslim voters, as well as to mobilizing their “communities” across the American heartland, involving mosques and schools. They aim to “make a difference” to the USA. CAIR, another major Muslim organization operating in dozens of states has also admitted to engaging in this major plan with the US Council of Muslim Organizations:

When the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based rights organization, launched its 2016 Muslims Vote campaign, the goal was to lead 1 million Muslim constituents to the voting booths.

Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at CAIR, said campaign organizers across the nation would work within communities to make sure Islamic community centers have the tools they need to register voters. – VOA News.

The same article also mentions that this plan involved organizing Muslims in key swing states to elect candidates who sympathise and have allegiances with the Muslim communities across the US:

According to the Pew Research Center, Muslims represent just 1 to 2 percent of the country’s population, but they tend to live in strategic places — swing states like Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

“When the vote is close, then in fact, the Muslim vote in those swing states can play a significant role. They … will be seen as a significant minority community,” Georgetown University Islamic studies professor John Esposito said. – VOA News.

These Muslims openly admit to wanting to play a “significant role” by voting. This is not some conspiracy theory, this is open and freely available proof that Muslims are trying to change the political order in the USA to favour their communities. They are organizing communities, using globalist umbrella organizations, having campaigns, using schools and mosques to promote their political agendas.

hijab

Is this what the future America looks like?

Who knows what else they are planning that the mainstream media is not reporting?

 

How Street Dawah Toronto Changed My Opinion on Street Dawah

Having been in the da’wah field for sometime, I found it difficult to be convinced of street da’wah. By street da’wah, I mean those folks that stand on street corners and hand out pamphlets and little books about Islam, sometimes books about Islam and Christianity. One of the things that made me dislike street da’wah was its emphasis on getting shahadahs (conversions). I always asked myself, would a person truly change their faith or accept a new one after a few minutes of conversation? I’m sure that there are people like this, but the vast majority are not. Yet, this issue has persisted in my mind, most of the people giving street da’wah are either themselves new Muslims or they know very little about Islam, much less so about Islam as it compares to other faiths. This form of popular da’wah became quite mainstream over the last decade or so. Videos of conversions on the street are some of the most popularly viewed Islam-related videos on the internet. This emphasis on getting new conversions truly bothered me.

sdt1

The emphasis more or less seemed to be on getting new conversions as often as possible, with the caveat of having the conversion recorded on video at the same time. Thus, one’s da’wah was only deemed successful if conversions were regularly taking place. Yet we need to ask, how many of those new converts (or reverts) have stayed in Islam? How many take the shahadah (testimony of faith) due to being pressured publicly, or due to that person simply being polite or easily manipulated? How could we know if these people had truly accepted Islam? Were there any follow ups? Did they have classes or sessions or ongoing support for the new converts? These questions honestly bothered me, and despite knowing many people in this area of da’wah, my doubts could not be mitigated. There was at least one group of young Muslims from my neighbourhood in Trinidad who did street da’wah and I spent a night or two with them. Their efforts did make me consider this form of da’wah differently, as I saw that their main interested was on education as opposed to bullying someone to change their religion.

sdt2

With these questions in mind, I had the pleasure of attending three sessions with Street Dawah Toronto. Something was different about this group, and I have to admit that it is these group of Muslims who need to be applauded for their hard work and dedication. In my time with them, I experienced things I never thought I would, had conversations that were meaningful and beneficial, while also having the opportunity to witness sincerity first hand. To begin with, what immediately stands out is the juxtaposition between the brothers and sisters of Street Dawah Toronto speaking calmly with pedestrians, while right next to them are a few different Christian missionary groups screaming and shouting about everyone’s damnation and their guarantees of going to hell. Of course, not all missionaries in Dundas Square behave this way, but of the few groups I observed over the weeks, there were at least two or more Christian groups preaching this way in the immediate vicinity of Street Dawah Toronto. It almost seemed to me as if passersby were actually drawn to the Muslims because of the missionaries shouting at them.

sdt3

What also stood out about Street Dawah Toronto, was that they didn’t have any signs or posters putting down any group of people, or damning people to hell, as other groups in Dundas Square had. None of their literature was offensive or aggressive, neither confrontational. They neither shouted nor screamed, or put anyone down during conversation. No insults were hurled, no threats were made. They didn’t crowd around any one individual, they spoke person to person, thus putting pressure on no one to accept Islam. My questions were quickly being answered, my doubts put to rest. Not once, did I observe any of them trying to convert anyone, or push them to accept the shahadah. In almost every conversation they were eager to hand out resources in the form of free literature so that passersby could do their own research, come to their own conclusions, learn Islam at a pace they can without being pressured. I was quite elated to see this. Words could not express the joy I had seeing this same pattern of loving, caring, sincere behaviour occurring week after week.

sdt4

Finally, there came a test. I watched one evening as a gentleman approached the da’wah stall and began to insult Islam. “This book (the Qur’an) was written by Satan, it’s from Satan!” he shouted as he approached a sister by herself. He then stood right next to the sister and shouted this statement at her a number of times while touching the literature on their da’wah stall. And that’s all it took. The sister didn’t even flinch, she didn’t shout in return, or insult the guy, or even call a brother over for help. She simply said, “okay sir,” and that was all. She was not angry, she did not retaliate, she did not become aggressive. What did she do after the man left? She continued to smile and hand pamphlets out. Not a sweat broken. That sister’s name? Tabasum. Her name literally means “smiling”. I was personally quite upset by the man’s aggressive behaviour, but on that day I witnessed with my eyes the Prophetic Sunnah of mercy. I witnessed the Prophetic Sunnah at work personified in the form of a smiling sister. That was the moment that almost brought me to tears. Hearing about the Prophetic Sunnah is one thing, but to witness it at work, being fulfilled by a sister in a tense situation truly showed me the beauty of Islam.

Yet, this was not unique to her. All the members of Street Dawah Toronto smiled incessantly, were pleasant and kind, warm and polite. Over the years I had seen these same faces every week giving da’wah, but seeing these guys at work is something else. Their humility cannot be emphasised enough. These folks have been using the very same da’wah stall that they originally started off with. It’s been about 6 years and it has remained the same. Just imagine that!  They didn’t change it to include a speaker or audio system, they didn’t change it to make the stall appear to be more flashy or “different”. They didn’t have to dress the stall up to appeal to anyone, because it was there enacting of the Prophetic Sunnah that drew people to them. I witnessed with my own eyes, both Muslims and non-Muslims gladly approaching them and looking with keen interest at the literature they had on display. I witnessed agnostics from Turkey, apostates from Iran, Turkic Saudi Arabian Muslims, Chinese Muslims approach the brothers and sisters at Street Dawah Toronto with smiles on their faces, eager for hugs and conversation.

I witnessed a Malaysian sister being greeted by a few people every couple minutes, she had in the past spoken to them about Islam (despite English not being her first language) and they remembered her and returned to speak with her. I witnessed a Somali brother engage with an angry man who still returned week after week, simply due to the brother’s kind attitude. I witnessed a Filipino sister bring her baby with her, yet came just to help the group out. I witnessed brothers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh all come out to do da’wah. So many nationalities, so few natural English speakers, yet so much sincerity. The fact that there were entire groups of non-Muslims returning week after week to discuss Islam, is testimony to the excellent decorum of these brothers and sisters.

In the end, I spent over 8 years disliking popular street da’wah, but it took me 15 minutes with Street Dawah Toronto to change my mind completely. May Allah continue to grant them mercy, goodness, sincerity and protection ameen.

and Allah knows best.

Jonathan McLatchie Begs For Do-Over Debate with Mansoor

After a disappointing and embarrassing encounter with Br. Mansoor, Jonathan McLatchie has challenged Br. Mansoor for a re-do. The following video in its entirety really demonstrated Jonathan’s inability to dialogue and debate under pressure:

This video has cleaned up audio and subtitles to hear the mistakes that Jonathan made:

In this video, both Dr. James White and Jonathan’s friend, Sam Shamoun correct and refute Jonathan’s mistakes about core Christian doctrines:

Unfortunately Jonathan claimed that fellow Christians were in agreement with him, and that he did not make heretical claims about the Trinity, which is contradicted in this conversation I had with his friend, Rudolph Bushoff:

After suffering such a humiliating debate defeat against Br. Mansoor, Jonathan is begging and pleading for another turn, this is Br. Mansoor’s response to him:

It appears that Jonathan Mclatchie had an unpleasant experience at Speakers’ Corner speaking with us (Hamid, me and Paul). He wishes for a second chance. He has challenged me openly for a debate. Needless to say that I am not interested in public/ formal debates and will have to let this one pass. Perhaps what he should instead do is to answer some of the points already made in our brief exchange at Speakers’ Corner to the wider Christian audience who might be reflecting on burning him on the stakes for his unorthodox belief if that were to happen in classical times.

Alternatively, if he is really desperate, I am found visiting most Sundays at Speakers’ Corner where we can continue our friendly discussion there informally, (sitting comfortably on the grass with the Sun shining over us) as the exchanges there can be more fruitful for mutual understanding of each others faith than from a formal debate setting where often it’s all about scoring points, in my opinion.

I can understand that whenever an intellectual exchange takes place on the Christian doctrine of Trinity at Speakers’ Corner, there often seems to be a realisation of a need for a second chance in a different debate setting as appreciated by external audience by the virtue of internet, as if that debate setting will provide somehow a comfort zone where the same points made in the exchange will wash away. As for Jonathan, I did want to continue our discussion at the park a little bit later from the initial exchange, but he was not that keen at all and had instead jumped on the ladder with Jay’s students only to be heckled down badly by the regular hecklers.

Anyways, apologetic Christians should rethink about throwing open challenges to lay Muslims like myself instead of engaging with our scholarly community. Or may be abandon the idea of formally debating our Islamic scholars, especially when even the Muslim laity seems to rock the foundation of the faith of your scholarly community?

and Allah 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.

 

Debate: The Bible or the Qur’an? – Sadat Anwar vs. Dr. Tony Costa

One of favourite Muslim debaters, Br. Sadat Anwar (may Allah preserve him) recently debated Dr. Tony Costa. Today the debate video has been released and suffice it to say, Br. Sadat is simply mesmerizing. He’s previously debated Alex Kerimli and Carlton McDonald, as well as one Qadiani, Ansar Raza. I strongly recommend that this debate be shared on behalf of Br. Sadat, it should be watched and studied.

Let us know what you think of Br. Sadat’s arguments.

and Allah knows best.

Since the Qur’an Is 600 Years After Jesus – Is It An Unreliable Witness?

Question:

Christians often argue that since the Qur’an is 600 years after Jesus, it is a less reliable witness than the New Testament. How do we respond to this?

Answer:

Consistency is key here, and the response is quite simple. The Christian accepts the first five books of the Old Testament which are usually attributed to Moses (عليه السلام). Yet, these books contain histories ranging from hundreds of years to thousands of years before Moses (عليه السلام) is alleged to have written them. Some Christians consider the accounts in Genesis 1 regarding the creation of the universe to be a historical account. Others consider it to be a phenomenological rendition of the creation of the universe. Either way, Christians accept these accounts as accurate despite the distance (disparity) between the time of Moses (عليه السلام) and that of the creation of the universe.

Consistency is key. Moses (عليه السلام) lived several generations removed from that of Noah (عليه السلام). Yet Christians accept and view the account of Noah (عليه السلام) in the Old Testament as a historical witness. The account of Noah (عليه السلام) is far more than 600 years between himself and Moses (عليه السلام) , yet Christians do not doubt an iota of what the Old Testament says. If we apply the scales of consistency regarding this topic, it would be seen that Christians do not adhere to a sensible methodology for judging what is and what is not historical. Theologically speaking,  when it comes to matters of revelation, time is irrelevant. Since God is all knowing,  it can be inferred that when He inspired Moses or Muhammad (عليه السلام) to write about the past, then it is assumed that what they wrote was historically accurate.

If missionaries applied the same criteria to their scriptures, they’d have to deny them as well as declare them as being historically inaccurate due to the gaps of time between the events themselves and the later authorship which recounted them. It should also stand to reason that not all accounts closest to an incident would be accurate, and that there exists the possibility of a later writing based on a stronger oral tradition. In such a case, the closest account may be inaccurate but the later writing could be more accurate. In conclusion, this is a very poor argument and it is an excellent example of poor thought processes.

Edit:

This answer is only in response to the argument of time being used, that is, the number of years between Muhammad (peace be upon him) and Jesus (‘alayhi as salam). It isn’t about whether Muslims consider the New Testament historical, or if Christians consider the Qur’an historical, or whether the histories of either writing corresponds with each other. This answer is only in response to the argument by Christians that 600 years is a factor in accepting or rejecting history.

and God knows best.

Donald Trump Wants Ban on Muslims

Donald Trump, the current Republican presidential front runner recently proposed that Muslims should be banned from entering the United States of America:

“Without looking at the various  polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine,” Trump said in a statement. “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.” – CNN.

donald trump

Donald Trump

However, we do know at least one of the major motivating factors. Former Senator Warren Rudman who served on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 1997 to 2000, and who co-chaired a bipartisan commission on national security, in an interview with PBS stated:

“These are fundamentally very, very sick people, who believe it is all right to take thousands of lives because they believe that their basic beliefs and geopolitical views are not being observed by the United States government.” – PBS.

“Are you telling me there are people who disagree totally with our foreign policy? You bet there are. You bet there are. And is it a potential contributor to this problem? You bet it is. Question: What do we do about it?” – PBS.

Former CIA intelligence officer Michael Scheuer, stated that events on September 11th occurred due to America’s “horrid” foreign policy strategies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU

Special Supervisor with the FBI, Agent James Fitzgerald, stated:

“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.” – NY TimesThe Guardian.

A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research further states that, “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.”

Therefore, it’s not a case of “we” having to determine and understand this problem, we already know what the problems are. The research indicates to us what the problems are. As a Muslim, while I myself reject and denounce the barbaric killing of innocents, there is a mountain worth of data available for anyone willing to understand why these attacks occur. His proposal therefore, is unadulterated rhetoric meant to pander to his audience. It has nothing to do with preventing terrorism, or with trying to remedy the issues that contribute to terrorism. His ignorance of the data, does not excuse him from his responsibility to make statements based on rational and informed thinking.

and God knows best.

Debate: Was Jesus the Son of God or Only the Prophet of God – Audience’s Review #1

This is the first of several audience reviews from the debate between Dr. Tony Costa and myself. The following review is from Abu Ilias (USA):


As a student of comparative theology, I am addicted to watching Christian/Muslim interfaith dialogues and debates. Different speakers have different oratory attributes, skills, knowledge, and of course deficiencies as well, and present their information in various ways. There are some who, to the discerning minds, seem to merely want to spout hate and animosity at the interlocutor’s person and faith conviction, not seriously interested in genuine dialogue or hoping to reach a fair and objective conclusion. And there are those that , bless them, seem to be very sincere and earnest but do not posses adequate knowledge in the scope of their debate endeavors and consequently end up creating straw men arguments, misrepresentations and false conclusions, albeit not intentionally.

This debate between Tony Costa and Ijaz Ahmed encapsulated the best of both worlds in my humble opinion. Ijaz was lucid, intelligent, respectful and up to date on the current landscape of Christian theological doctrine and textual criticism. He did not allow his Quranic or Islamic preconceptions to muddy the merit of his arguments nor did he allow the fever of religious debate to infiltrate and ruin the civility of the event (contrary to what others such as David Wood and Sam Shamoun frequently do on ABN). Tony Costa, is also one of the more respectable Christian personalities and apologists. He displayed a very professional level of dialogue and did not resort to some of the oft repeated bigoted slogans that ubiquitously occupy the lips of others who use the ABN platform. And while I believe some of Costa’s arguments to be weak or unfounded, I never found myself grinding my teeth or face palming at any time during his debate, which is a first for me as a listener of ABN’s material.

Ijaz (as well as some very intelligent Muslim questioners during the Q and A) did a terrific job using only christian and general biblical scholarship to support his claims on various topics and I learned much from his presentations as well as his style of delivery, in fact, I am shocked at his level of knowledge and wisdom at such a young age. I will definitely watch this debate numerous times in order to study the material he so eloquently presented and utilize it in the future! By my humble estimation, Ijaz clearly provided the more objective and faith-neutral arguments while Costa, although being respectful and polite, countered with little more than cliches that have long been discarded by modern studies in textual criticism and Christology. Examples include his continued claim that the Gospels were 1st century documents despite Ijaz’s elucidation of the fact that the oldest known manuscripts like P52 are dated by biblical scholars no earlier than the early second century and as late as the third century (even though Prof Dan Wallace claims to have been a part of the dating and discovery of a small late first century fragment of Mark back in 2012, it is now almost 2016 with still no verification.)

There are many more points, paramount ones, that can be expounded upon to show how Ijaz demonstrated the problematic nature of reconciling unitiarian passages in the NT with the trinity and the dual nature of Jesus peace be upon him, as well as how he academically clarified the dubious nature of the NT text as a whole, which in essence trumped anything Costa could have had to refute!


To have your review or comments about the debate published on the website and on our Facebook page, submit them via our Contact Us page.

and Allah knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »