Toronto Islamic Sunday School Conforms to Accusations
Posted: May 15, 2012 Filed under: Cultural criticism, Guest article, Islamophobia, Judaism, MDI Canada, Militant Secularism, Secularism, Uncategorized, Zionism | Tags: anti-semetism, anti-semitism, east end madrasah, east end madrassah, islamic book controversy, Islamophobia, judaism, mdi canada, michael coren, omar qayyum, sun media, toronto madrasah, toronto madrassah, toronto sun 9 Comments »by Omar Qayum
“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” – John F. Kennedy
The East End Madrassah (EEM), a Shi’ite Islamic Sunday school in Toronto, Canada, is under high scrutiny due to accusations of an anti-Semitic, violent and sexist curriculum. At the request of a Jewish organization, the York Region Police’s Hate Crimes Unit is currently conducting an investigation. Unfortunately, this has not stopped politicians, the media and the public from jumping on the condemnation bandwagon. What happened to due process and innocent until proven guilty?
Due to overwhelming pressure, the EEM rushed to “unreservedly apologize to the Jewish community for the unintentional offence that the item has caused.” Under the circumstances it would only be fair to examine the following “anti-Semitic” passages, taken from an EEM course textbook, in order to verify the strength of the accusations:
QUOTE 1: “End of Jewish Plots and Treacheries: Ever since the Prophet’s entry into Madina, the treacherous Jews had vehemently opposed him and his Islamic call, evoking memories of their hostility to the previous Prophet, Jesus Christ, half a millennium ago. The crafty Jews entered into an alliance with the polytheist Quraish in a bid to stamp out Islam. They conspired to kill Prophet Muhammad despite the fact that he was lenient towards them and had treated them kindly, hoping to convince them of Islam’s truth. But eventually as Jewish plots and aggressions increased, he had no choice other than to take up arms against them, in order to protect Islam and the Muslims. At the battle of Khaiber which is famous for Imam Ali’s heroic exploits, the Prophet defeated them ending Jewish intrigues and conspiracies in Arabia.”
The arguments for anti-Semitism in the above text can be broken down as follows:
This is a condemnation of all Jews.
The passage clearly describes a specific group of Jews living during a specific time and place. Viewing this as a blanket condemnation of all Jews is simply absurd. Do we not critique the Axis powers as “the Germans,” “the Italians” and “the Japanese” without their descendants taking offence? Also, like ancient Judea, 7th century Medina was a tribal society where a violation of the tribal code by even one belligerent member, if left unpunished by his tribe, rendered the entire tribe guilty of that violation. So when Jewish tribal leaders conspired against Medina, they knew the repercussions they were bringing upon their entire tribe—a concept not foreign to the Old Testament. This tribal policy is similar, however anachronistic, to George Bush’s 2001 State of the Union address where he infamously said: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” to which he received a prolonged thunderous applause and a standing ovation.
This kind of Jewish history should not be taught.
According to early Muslim historians, the Jewish tribes of Medina plotted to kill the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and eventually reneged on a treaty—a serious offence in any tribal society. Is history to be rewritten or rejected because it offends others? If the accounts recorded by early Muslim historians are to be rejected, then so too are Jewish claims of bondage in Egypt, the Exodus and the promise of a Holy Land; all of which rely exclusively on ancient Jewish sources.
Furthermore, if some in the Jewish community want Muslim schools to “sanitize” their history, then principle demands that they begin by removing all content in their schools taken from the Tanakh and the Talmud that are viewed as genocidal, racist, sexist and/or homophobic in nature.
The words used to describe the Jews of Medina are hateful.
When language is poorly used it can convey ambiguity and/or offence. The definition of “treacherous” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: “characterized by or manifesting treachery.” In other words, there is a difference between calling someone inherently treacherous and treacherous due to an act of treachery. The former would be considered hate speech, not the latter. When the Jewish tribes of Medina broke the treaty, they committed an act of treachery, and hence could be called “treacherous.” This logic can be applied to all the controversial words used in the passage. With an ongoing police investigation examining intent, the EEM is blameworthy for using ambiguous language, if anything.
It is also worth noting that Jews have historically found sanctuary in Muslim lands—in Islamic Spain, the Ottoman Empire or more recently during the Holocaust—when they were being persecuted and/or killed. Why would Muslims do this if they “hated” Jews?
Children will think all Jews are evil.
If that is the case, a serious revision of our History curriculum is in order. Children must not learn about the Holocaust, South African Apartheid, American slavery and racial segregation or the genocide of American Natives, lest they view all people of European descent as inherently evil. Furthermore, publicly funded Catholic schools must not teach that homosexuality is a sin as this offends all homosexuals. Rather than censor our children from historical facts and controversial views, we should teach them how to think and reason critically. After all, isn’t this the foundation upon which true freedom of speech can flourish?
QUOTE 2: “Islam is a dynamic, comprehensive school that aims at the rectification of the social and economic systems of the world in a special manner. Unlike the beliefs of the ancient Romans, the Jews, and the Nazis, Islam is not restricted to a certain community of a certain race, but is for all human beings…”
Jonathan Kay of the National Post said that the above text “doesn’t ‘equate’ Judaism with Nazism,” but merely states that they are “restricted to a certain community or a certain race …” He further states that “the point is accurate from a purely technical perspective.” While the comparison may seem distasteful to some, it is certainly not criminal. Ironically, many Jewish Islamophobes regularly compare Islamic ideology to Fascism, Communism and Nazism. Also, if anti-Semitism was truly the EEM’s agenda, why then is the 160-page textbook not littered with clear evidences? Again, this is a matter for our legal system to decide, not propaganda.
QUOTE 3: “Islam has allowed boys to engage in sports for one specific reason and that is to always keep them healthy and strong. But why should a Muslim be healthy and strong? Firstly, it is necessary to take care of the body because it is a gift from Allah. Secondly, so that you may physically be ready for jihad whenever the time comes for it.”
Words like “Shariah,” “madrassah” and “jihad” are routinely being used today to spread Islamophobia in the West. In Islam, jihad can be offensive or defensive. If the EEM is producing “young jihadists,” then why have none of their students committed violent attacks against Canada in the past 40 years that it has been operating? If valuing self-defence is a crime, then all Canadians in possession of legal handguns or having participated in martial arts stand condemned as well. Are Muslims not entitled to defend their lives, families, wealth and country like every other Canadian? Do we not want citizens who are physically fit to defend its nation’s borders against threats foreign and domestic? Yet again, if “jihad” was meant in a criminal sense, the investigation will show this.
Ironically, it seems that America, Europe and Israel are currently engaged in “bad jihad” with Muslim countries—not the other way around. Moreover, the Jewish Defence League’s (JDL) “Core Ideology” states that “it is not unJewish for Jews to defend themselves–even physically if need be.” (emphasis mine) The JDL is at the forefront of spreading Islamophobia and is a known terrorist group to the FBI, yet they are freely allowed to open chapters in Canada; Hamas on the other hand is banned.
QUOTE 4: “No doubt any wise, humanitarian person accepts such a combat and admires it [jihad] because there is no other way to achieve the sacred ends of the Prophets.”
Not surprisingly, the above sentence was taken out of context. The conveniently omitted sentence that appears directly before it is: “It goes without saying that such struggles are necessary and that no Prophet could avoid combating those who intend to bring ruin on human societies and cause corruptions and social decay.” Since when did “combating those who intend to bring ruin on human societies and cause corruptions and social decay” become evil? Do we not go to war for the very same reasons? Why move the goalposts when Muslims teach the same principles? Don’t Jews accept and admire Old Testament Prophets like Moses, Joshua and David (peace be upon them all) for leading their followers into combat?
QUOTE 5: ”[Girls should limit their involvement in physical exercise and sports and instead] involve themselves in the activities and hobbies which will be helpful for them in the future as wives and mothers.”
I could not verify the above quote, but how is it forbidding girls from engaging in physical exercise and sports? When did encouraging girls to be good wives and mothers become socially unacceptable? As I write this, will we not be honouring our mothers and/or wives today on Mother’s Day? However, in modern day society where a woman’s worth and freedom is determined by how much she can earn and how little she can wear, the objections to the above quote come as no surprise. The sad reality is that when Muslim women try to compete in sports in the West they are often banned from participating; FIFA only recently lifted their hijab ban. It seems like Muslims are damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
My intent is not to defend the EEM, but to ask readers to withhold judgement until our legal system runs its course. However, I do not respect the EEM’s rushed apology as it branded them guilty in the court of public opinion. If this was truly an “unintentional offence,” they had a moral duty to stand their ground and confront their accusers. Avi Benlolo, president of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies said: “They need to reach out to us and to other groups to convince us that this was not meant and they will take any step to change it.” Who do Benlolo and his organization think they are? Canadians are only accountable to the law, not some organisation. If the law finds the EEM innocent, they don’t need to “convince” anybody. If the EEM is found innocent, they should seriously consider legal action against anybody who would harass or slander them regarding this matter thereafter.
Finally, I appeal to the Muslim community in the West to stand their ground against biased media outlets, politicians and special interest groups. We are not third-rate citizens and must confront those who try to defame us; failure to do so will only embolden them. There is much to be learnt from the Jewish community and other well-organized, honourable minority groups. They are contributing members of society and effective at lobbying their causes on various platforms. When will the Muslim community awake from its slumber? Today the reservation is with our religious texts and beliefs; tomorrow it may be with our very existence.
And now for something completely different…
Posted: April 17, 2012 Filed under: Silly, Uncategorized, Videos 7 Comments »Are Muslims Getting Special Privileges in Western Countries? The Question of Bus Ads in Toronto
Posted: April 10, 2012 Filed under: articles by Sadat, Christian extremism, Christianity, Islam, Islamophobia, Militant Secularism, Secularism, Silly, The News, Uncategorized | Tags: blazingcatfur, creeping sharia, creeping shariah, liberalism, mdi canada, michael coren, muslim ad, muslims special privileges, secularism, sun media, tarek fatah, the agenda with michael coren, the toronto sun, there is no god except Allah ad, tolerance, toronto sun, ttc complaint, ttc islamic ad, ttc muslim ad 9 Comments »by Sadat bin Anwar
The Toronto Sun, a sensationalist tabloid-style Islamophobic newspaper, is at it again. This time it has taken the trouble to report the (non)story of Islamic ads at subway train stations in the Toronto area. The ads in question state “There is no god but Allah” and gives further information about the “Walk-In Islamic Infocenter” which offers free translations of the Qur’an in over 85 languages.
The story, which may have been fed to the Sun by Arnie Lemaire (a.k.a. “blazingcatfur”), was predictably covered on anti-Islam blog sites and on “The Agenda” tv show hosted by Michael Coren, a news commentator who has recently been importing British-style tabloid Islamophobia into Canada via his new employer, Sun Media. The title of this particular segment of his tv show was the provocative “Allah rides the TTC”.
The summary of the often hateful anti-ad arguments that the Sun report and Coren’s tv show have given birth to is as follows:
1. The statement “There is no god but Allah” is offensive to non-Muslims and counts as aggressive proselytizing in public space.
2. Muslims are being given special rights that non-Muslims, such as Christians, do not enjoy. Had a Christian put up such an advertisement on a bus or subway train, Muslims and the PC brigade would have been up in arms. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), the public transport agency that operates public buses and subway trains in the Toronto area, in other words, is scared of jihadist fatwas.
This story, after it was first reported by the Sun, was also unfortunately taken up by The Toronto Star and some other mainstream papers, albeit minus the melodramatic anti-Muslim polemics.
The TTC’s Advertising Commission along with TTC commissioner Maria Augimeri and TTC chair Karen Stintz reviewed the ads and found that there are no legal grounds to remove them. The Supreme Court of Canada in a past statement has said, “Citizens, including bus riders, are expected to put up with some controversy in a free and democratic society.” In other words, someone being offended is not sufficient reason for the ads to be pulled down. It must contravene some aspect of the law for it to be pulled down on legal grounds alone.
This raises the real question: Who exactly is unhappy and constantly complaining about western, including Canadian laws? Judging from the content found on most anti-Islam blog sites today, it would appear that it is the Islamophobes, more than any Muslim, who want to change the laws of Canada (or America, or U.K., or France) for them to better fit their vision of an ideal western society. It is certainly the Islamophobes who are the most verbal and adamant in such demands or implied demands.
Rather than backing down, apologizing, and providing all sorts of justifications and defences, Canadian Muslims and their leaders ought to go on the offensive and challenge Michael Coren and his ilk to bring his argument and case to the Supreme Court, if he really loves his (adopted) home of Canada as much as he claims and if he really does believe that such ads threaten Canada. The reason Coren and no one else will do this—and I can guarantee this – is because this is a non-issue and it stands no argument on legal grounds. The Muslim-haters know this very well. Typically, what such pseudo-news programs are reporting is not any type of legal “controversy” at all, but rather an attempt to create sectarian conflict and controversy where it need not exist.
The matter of the choice of the Arabic word “Allah” instead of the English word “God” in the Muslim ad, and its wisdom or lack thereof, can be a topic of discussion elsewhere. For the purposes of the argument in this article, however, it should be understood that even if “Allah” referred to a non-Judeo-Christian or false god, the ad still has a right to be put up under both Canadian law as well as TTC guidelines and regulations. The ad could have been in support for the ancient Greek god Zeus, and it would still be legal.
Moving on to the second argument, the editorial board at the Toronto Sun might say: “Well, that is all fine and dandy. But why is there a double standard in the application of our laws? Why are Muslims allowed to actualize such civil rights, but not members of other religions or non-religions?”
The Toronto Sun and their flock of sheep would not need to ask such questions if they (and other Canadian newspapers) did their job when reporting about Islam and Muslims and actually investigated the facts. The other alternative, of course, is that they have investigated the facts and are perfectly aware of what they are mis-reporting, but they are purposely presenting selective and slanted bits of information that will prejudice the majority of Canadians against Islam and Muslims. Yes, this does sound like one of those extremist conspiracy theories. Until you actually do bother to check out the facts.
Now in all fairness, newspapers like the Toronto Star (and even the Sun) did mention another ad—this time a Christian one—that was also raising the ire of some TTC riders. The ad in question was put up by Bus Stop Bible Studies, a Christian Canadian organization that has been placing religious ads on TTC buses and trains for the past five years. Had a small group of Muslims not joined them in similar activity, there is of course a good chance that this group could have carried on their work for another 100 years without any newspaper ever taking any interest or note of it. Unfortunately for this Christian group, however, they too now have to face a tiny portion of the criticism that is otherwise being projected mainly at the Muslim group.
As a side-note, the specific Christian ad that raised objections was one in which a photo of a young girl is shown and she is urged to pray to Jesus for help in response to the abusive domestic circumstances in which she lives. It was not a message of religious exclusivism or one which specifically targeted non-Christians in any way, and hence it is unlikely that it was a Muslim who complained about this ad. The complaint to the TTC, as far as we can tell, was not based on any religious grounds per se but rather on other social and ethical reasons of objection.
Also, in fairness, the Toronto Star mentioned the fact that, in 2009, the TTC approved an ad by an atheist group which read “There is no god”. This would make it appear that Coren, the Sun Media, and company do not have a great problem with the statement “There is no god”, but rather the part that says “except Allah”. In other words, it is not the negative statement that no god exists which is so overwhelmingly offensive, but rather the statement that Allah positively does.
Had the Sun and Coren truly been concerned for the sensitivities of people of all faiths, they would object much more adamantly to the atheist ad which stated that no god (whether Jesus, whether Allah, or whether someone/something else) exists. Then again, had the Sun or Coren truly been concerned for the sensitivities and feelings of people of all faiths, they would not have approved and aired a news program which was entitled “Allah rides the TTC.” The Islamic ad on the TTC, afterall, did not make any derogatory statements about any specific god or religion. In fact, the Christian is still free to argue for the position that Jesus is “Allah”, a word which of course means “God” in Arabic and is found in all Arabic versions of the New Testament. If Coren still has difficulty in overcoming this particular cultural stumbling block, he could perhaps enlist the help of Christian Arab friends, assuming that he has any friends outside of his own Jewish-Catholic circle (Tarek Fatah does not count). And if he does, then he should certainly ask one of his Coptic Christian friends what he/she thinks of the wording, “Allah rides the TTC.” For some reason, this particular wording did not at all offend Tarek Fatah and his friends at the Muslim Canadian Congress (widely regarded as a puppet organization), but it may very well offend Arab Christians who also pray to “Allah” everyday.
The final and last refuge and argument of the xenophobic pseudo-news and blog brigade in regards to this case may be: “Okay, there are Christian ads on the TTC as well. But the difference is, they are not offensive to non-Christians, and they do not make exclusivist claims to one Truth at the expense of the beliefs of others. By allowing Muslims to put up ads that are making exclusivist claims to the Truth and which thereby negate the truth-claims of other religions, Muslims are being accorded special privileges that are not being extended to Christians and others.”
If we are not careful, Michael Coren (author of the book with the exclusive truth-claim title of “Why Catholics Are Right”) will eventually have the world believing that Canadian Muslims stand guard outside the doors of Roman Catholic churches in Quebec on Sunday mornings, preventing anyone from under the age of 60 from attending Sunday Mass. The decline of Christianity and “Christian heritage” in western Europe and in Canada, after all, can only be blamed on the presence of Islam and Muslims! A convenient and symptomatic scapegoat for much larger problems, and a grand conspiracy theory if we ever heard one!
Let us address this final argument, the argument of exclusivist claims in the forms of religious ads in public spaces by Muslims. We will now share a small sample of the over 300 ads that can be found at the website of Bus Stop Bible Studies and which are available to be sponsored for TTC buses and trains. We draw your attention particularly to the ads which quote John 14:6-7. These particular selections, which state that there is no way to God EXCEPT THROUGH JESUS, have already been approved and have appeared on TTC buses and subway trains, according to David Harrison, the President of Bus Stop Bible Studies (one of these John 14:7 panels, quite interestingly, features a photo of a very young Muslim girl in a hijab). His organization currently has over 500 panels on TTC buses and trains, including 220 “studies”; the Walk-In Islamic Infocenter, the group at the center of the Sun’s ire, has only 10 posters that are found in 7 different TTC locations. Talk about the need to contextualize the news!
As an important disclaimer, it is only a handful of extremists like Michael Coren and Ezra Levant-types who are focusing in on and targeting Canadian Muslims for such (non)issues. Even the majority of Christians are far more tolerant than this. It is only a handful of Christian extremists and their often non-religious allies who engage in such low-level polemics, often with the very intention of trying to divide the Christian and Muslim Canadian communities. We should not let them succeed. Bus Stop Bible Studies are fully entitled to put up their ads, and they have prepared an excellent document on their website which goes over relevant legal rulings and which should be used as a resource by Muslim groups like the Walk-In Islamic Infocenter. The document can be found at http://www.busstopbiblestudies.com/what/religious-advertising.php
Below is a selection of Bus Stop Bible Studies that can be sponsored to be put on TTC buses and trains, including selections from John 14:6-7 which are currently already running on TTC buses or stations according to Mr. David Harrison. Let the haters now stop with this imagined persecution mind-set. Had Muslims run ads similar to the ones below, we all know that Sun Media would have had a field day with it. In light of the fact of these ads, if there is anyone being discriminated against, it is clearly the Muslims. If there is anyone receiving special privileges, it is probably the Christians. That is why the Christian ads below have been running in the hundreds on TTC buses/trains for the past five years, without a whisper from the media. Yet when a small group of Muslims decided to exercise their rights also and partake in similar activity by putting up a handful of ads of their own, they were immediately hounded by the right wing Sun Media. Yes, there is a double standard at work.
Except for the most hardened and wilfully blind of people, seeing is believing. Let us open our eyes and see.
The two panels below are making exclusive claims to the Truth.
The ad below could be offensive not only to non-Christians, but also to Christians who do not believe in the need for water baptism.
By default, the panel below is saying that anyone who does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God will perish.
In the panel below, other religions are basically negated by being criticized for having the wrong approach to God.
The ad below is potentially offensive to anyone who values a post-secondary education!
The panel below could be offensive to the families of the female victims of Ted Bundy, as well as to other women who have been the victims of violence at the hands of men.
The ad below could be offensive to non-Christians. If Jesus Christ is “Lord”, this implies that the gods of other religions are false. It is an exclusivist claim.
The ad below could be offensive to people who are rich (if they bother to ride on public transit).
The ad below is a clear and derogatory negation of idol-worship, and hence could be offensive to Hindus and Buddhists.
The panel below could be offensive to orthodox Jews who participate in public congregational prayers in synagogues (notice how the panel has interpolated the words “or churches” in square brackets, something not found in the original biblical passage being quoted).
The ad below makes it clear that all non-Christian religions are meaningless.
The ad below states that there is no way to the Father (God) except through Jesus.
The panel below is currently advertised at a TTC bus/train/station.
The panel below is currently advertised at a TTC bus/train/station. It features a photo of a young Muslim girl in a hijab and the biblical passage that states that no one can come to God except through Jesus. We are not aware of any Muslim complaints in regards to this ad.
Islamic Book Controversy in Toronto
Posted: March 28, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: eric brazau, ezra levant, how to beat your wife, islamic book controversy, islamic book controversy toronto, Islamophobia, islamophobia in canada, sheharyar shaikh, sun news, toronto sun 2 Comments »
By Sheharyar Shaikh
A non-Muslim acquaintance recently sent me a photograph of her friend who was holding a recent copy of the Toronto Sun newspaper in his hand with the headline, “Is beating women allowed?” (or something to that effect), in reference to a marriage guidebook penned by the late Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, an Indian scholar of Islam. The book is available in Canada (and other western countries), much to the horror of some of the Canadian public. My friend asked me for my response, and here is what it was:
I have not read the 160-page book “A Gift for Muslim Couple” by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, and I doubt that the editorial and reporting team at the Sun has either. Regardless, it is clear that a lot of fear and paranoia is being generated by the Sun Media for sad and cheap publicity points. We have seen, in recent times, many such sensationalist articles and television shows targeting the Muslim community in the U.K. and U.S. Unfortunately, the trend has recently been extending to Canada.
I believe that the criticism of the Muslim community based on this book is basically unfair for the following three reasons:
1. This book was written in the 19th century. Its author was born in 1863 and died in 1943, while India was still under the British Raj. It is rather unfair to use this book to assert the Muslim male’s alleged contempt for women. It is from before the time women got the right to vote, to work freely, to get into professional colleges, to own full property rights and, incidentally, to have legal protection against spousal abuse in Canada. If invoking this 19th century book is allowed to strike a blow at Canadian Muslims, then critics should be allowed to bring works from that same era to make the case for Western males’ contempt for women as well. And if reading this book in the 21st century should be a moral and legal crime, what should we say when the world sees 21st century Western women objectified, sexualized, and humiliated in bondage and sadomasochistic videos in the name of entertainment by the 20 billion-dollar porn industry right here at home? Regardless, the point is that this book is not from our time, and it should not be used to beat Muslims for “hating” women.
2. All pre-modern religious traditions hold women in a position that is in some respects, socially and politically, secondary or even inferior to men. Should the Sun’s criticism not be across the board and apply to all religions to be fair? Should Eric Brazau (the shady individual who went into an Islamic bookstore in Toronto and “discovered” this book) not make similar daring raids into Jewish and Christian bookstores, searching and exposing any and all material that might offend modern liberal sensibilities? Think about this: I have five copies of the same one book that gives women a status way lower than this Muslim book ever could. It’s called the Bible. And guess what? It’s way more popular in the bookstores too. Check out this website to know what I mean: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm
I do not think of holding protests against the Bible or setting up huge bonfires burning Bibles because that would be provocative. Similarly, when orthodox Jewish men in western countries get up in the morning and thank God for not making them a woman but a man (in a prayer called Amidah), I do not think of marching out against them in protest. I would however hold dialogues to try to come to a common understanding. This is a positive approach. Dialogue, not incitement.
3. For any criticism to be valid, it must be fair and balanced. The Sun’s report on this book focuses only on the things unacceptable in western culture for the purposes of cheap sensationalism, the fertilizer that keeps Sun Media alive. Study a proper book review in academic journals and one will note that they do not try to deceive the reader by showing only one side, but give a fair perspective of what the author is trying to say. For example, in the Toronto Sun’s report, it states: “In the book’s opening pages, it is written that `it might be necessary to restrain her with strength or even to threaten her.’” There must be a context to this, however, which the critic conveniently ignores. Any man would restrain a woman “with strength” and words if the situation direly called for it and quite possibly expect the same from her.
As far as the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), is concerned, he gave Muslim men the best marriage advice when he said: “The best of you are those who are the best toward their wives”. His wife Ayesha testifies that the Prophet was never seen to hit a servant, woman or an animal. His example is what we Muslims should aspire to emulate at all times.
A Review of the Ally/White Debate in Canada
Posted: March 25, 2012 Filed under: articles by Sadat, Uncategorized | Tags: "christian", "christianity", "james white", "namf", "north american muslim foundation", "sadat anwar" "imad ali" "apologetics" "muslim christian debate", "shabir ally", debate 12 Comments »
by Sadat bin Anwar & Imad Ali
The North American Muslim Foundation (NAMF) in Scarborough, Canada, was packed to the gills on March 22nd by an enthusiastic audience ready to watch these two respected debaters tackle the topic of “Did Jesus Claim Deity?” The majority of the audience was Christian, most of whom probably came in from outside of the Toronto area. The Muslim turnout, disappointingly, was quite small. White’s estimate ratio of 70/30 in favour of the Christian attendees is probably accurate, and it speaks to the need for Muslims to involve themselves more in Christian-Muslim apologetics.
As expected, Shabir Ally and James White both carried themselves with dignity and civility, and the arguments and counter-arguments that they presented did not at any time undermine their great admiration for one another, which was evident throughout the debate.
As with some other past debates at NAMF, the moderator was Pastor Neil Bulloch, someone who is respected on both sides and is seen as a very reliable and impartial moderator. Also as in the past, both the Muslim and Christian sides had their information booths with pamphlets and books set up outside the main lecture hall. It would be nice to see this type of open and free debate between a Christian and a Muslim take place in an Evangelical church instead of in a mosque, with both sides being allowed to give out pamphlets and other such information.
Moving on to the debate itself, it is not easy to objectively state which side “won”. We could not help but to feel that this debate was a re-run of Ally and White’s past debates, with White’s familiar complaint about Ally’s use of liberal biblical scholars dominating much of his presentation and rebuttal. Ally responded by explaining that he had gone to great pains to find and cite conservative scholars like F.F. Bruce and Richard Bauckham, scholars that White agrees are conservatives. White however still rejected their authority in certain important areas (like the dating of the gospels) and continued to use the “anti-supernatural bias” argument against any and all biblical scholars who do not conclude that Jesus believed himself to be God. So “stalemate” is perhaps the most realistic description for the outcome of the night.
Ally’s presentation was, as usual, highly articulate and nuanced, but not flawless. In recent years, he has been slow to jump on the PowerPoint presentation wagon. White, on the other hand– despite indicating on his website a couple of days earlier that he might not use a PowerPoint presentation—did in fact do so. Ally had a slide presentation as well, but for some reason it only consisted of three screens. Ally’s presentation of the “improvements” (from the perspective of Christian Christology) made by Matthew to Mark’s text could have been made far more effective if the relevant examples that he quoted had been put up on the screen for all to visually examine. Visual aids would have helped visual learners; for many people, as the saying goes, seeing is believing. When you can actually see the parallel texts and how Matthew has edited Mark’s writing to make Jesus look more powerful and less deficient, the dominant scholarly theory of Markan priority and of Matthean and Lucan literary reliance on Mark suddenly makes perfect sense and becomes a stark reality that is hard to deny. Ally cited several strong examples of this “snowball growth” phenomenon quickly and effortlessly, but we suspect that it may have flown over much of the audience’s heads. What was good was Ally’s attempt to involve the audience by having them repeat the words that Mark had used (eg. “Rabbi”) versus the “improved” and enhanced words (eg. “Lord”) that Matthew used when dealing with the same incident, but the mostly evangelical audience was not in a participatory mood at this particular juncture in Ally’s presentation (unfortunately, some in the Christian audience did not mirror White’s dignified presence and could be heard chuckling during parts of Ally’s talk).
Another small, perhaps superficial, constructive criticism for Ally as well as for other Muslim debaters would be for them to speak louder into the microphones. For some reason, American Christians always sound louder on the mic, and this can have an impact on the audience’s attention level. Just consider and compare the typical panel on a crossfire-type of news program on CNN versus its counterparts on British BBCor Canadian CBC. Americans are loud speakers. In a debate setting where both sides are competing for the audience’s often fleeting attention, one has to not only speak into the mic but also own the mic, so to speak.
Returning to the actual substance of the debate, Ally did not need to spend so much time explaining and justifying his use of critical biblical scholarship. In fact, more time was spent on questions like “Should we use liberal biblical scholarship?”, “What would be the outcome if redaction criticism were to be applied to the Qur’an?”, “Are Shabir’s standards consistent?”, etc. By spending more time on addressing these questions than on the topic itself (“Did Jesus Claim Deity?”), the debate became a bit too academic and abstract for the average person in the audience and Ally basically allowed White to set the direction and course for the debate. Instead of remaining on the defensive, Ally should have turned up the heat and brought out the scholarly arsenal that he spent so much time defending but not actually using in the debate. We have in the past seen him use this arsenal with great effect.
Let us provide a few examples of points on which Ally could have more effectively rebutted White, but did not.
The first opportunity was when Ally mentioned how false prophecies had been inserted into the mouth of Jesus by the gospel writers. He specifically mentioned how Jesus had at various points prophesied that the apocalypse would happen within the lifetime of his disciples. In response to this, White made the rather strained defence that Jesus was actually prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalemin these instances. Ally could have followed up on this and pressed the argument further. A simple perusal of the relevant chapters (for example, Mark 13) would expose the improbability of White’s explanation. There are in these chapters mention of falling stars, darkening of the sun, and the Son of Man coming down in the clouds. These things have absolutely nothing to do with the sack ofJerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E. Ally did respond to this but he should have spent more time on it. It is a powerful argument and if presented properly by a skilled debater like Ally it cannot fail to impress. Instead, Ally mentioned the failed prophecy of “there shall not remain one stone upon another [in Jerusalem]” which at best is just a subsidiary and secondary point. The main point– that Jesus according to Mark prophesied the end of the world within the lifetime of the disciples– was let go too easily.
Another opportunity for Ally to have more thoroughly disproved one of White’s points was when the issue of Jesus cursing the fig tree came up. (White’s comment about Muslims being “obsessed” with the fig tree was humorous, but it should not discourage or deter Muslims from continuing to ask the difficult questions that emanate from this particular instance in Jesus’ life as per the gospels.) Ally mentioned how, according to the Gospel of Mark, the reason Jesus did not find figs on the tree was because it was not the season for figs. This detail, found only in Mark, would imply Jesus’ ignorance in regards to the proper season of the figs. In the Gospel of Matthew, however, the part about it not being the season of the figs is taken out. White’s only response to this was that Jesus, being a Palestinian Jew, would definitely know when the season of figs is, and therefore neither Mark nor Matthew are implying Jesus’ ignorance in this regard. Ally’s comeback on this was to again emphasize how Matthew has improved the story and removed any implication of Jesus’ ignorance by removing the part about it not being the season of the figs.
Rather than to stress only that particular piece of information, however, Ally could have also stressed the part in the Markan version which states that Jesus “went to see if perhaps He would find anything on it.” (This is the translation taken from the New American Standard Bible, the same version that White was a critical consultant for.) So according to the Gospel of Mark, then, Jesus approaches the tree for the specific purpose to see if perhaps he might find figs on it. This is either a misguided intention based on deficient knowledge on the part of Jesus, or an erroneous interpretation of Jesus’ intention on the part of the gospel writer. This bit of information in typical and predictable fashion is conveniently missing from Matthew, which doubly exposes Matthew’s efforts to conceal Jesus’ ignorance of the season of the figs by way of editing out not only one but two statements containing embarrassing material in relation to the same singular event of Jesus approaching the fig tree. One does not need to cite scholars of any colour or stripe or their commentaries on the Bible to see the obvious facts that are there for everyone to see.
Nonetheless, we do find a number of traditional and conservative Bible commentaries concurring with Muslims on this particular point. In Adam Clarke’s commentary on this passage, he says, “Our Lord with propriety expected to find some [figs]”. Had Ally shared this particular commentary, for example, it would have been interesting to see how White would have written off someone who refers to Jesus as “Our Lord” as a “liberal with an anti-supernatural bias”. In John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, he states, “And when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; no fruit at all upon it, contrary to his expectation as a man, and the promising appearance the tree made.” So again, according to Gill, Jesus was indeed expecting and hoping to find figs on the tree according to the story as it is reported in the Gospel of Mark. Matthew Henry in his commentary also states, “… he hoped to find some fruit.” John Wesley also considers this to be the reason for Jesus going to the tree. The most interesting comment, however, probably comes from the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary in which the writers state:
One thing, however, we are sure of—it was real bodily hunger which He now sought to allay by the fruit of this fig tree… not a mere scene for the purpose of teaching a lesson, as some early heretics maintained, and some still seem virtually to hold.
Had Ally provided any of these commentaries, it is difficult to see how White could have dismissed them as “liberals with an anti-supernatural bias”, or ignoramuses who do not understand the basic realities of Palestinian agricultural life. Considering then that these respected commentaries concur with Muslims on this point, one can perhaps better understand why Muslims are so “obsessed with the fig tree.”
Another issue that was not explored was that of the uncertain authorship of the gospels, and hence the uncertain nature of Jesus’ sayings as reported in those gospels. When questioning the majority of the scholars in regards to the traditional late (ie. post-Temple destruction) dating of the gospels, White stated that it was nothing more than the presuppositional biases of these scholars that led them to date the gospels to after the destruction of the Temple. White said that all dating of the gospels is basically based on conjecture, since we do not have the dated and signed originals. While this may be true, it is also the case that it is conjecture and the presuppositional biases of Christian tradition that attribute the authorship of the four gospels to the apostles of Christ. This is a point that Ally did not mention at all. After all, if the lack of hard physical evidence in regards to the dating of the gospels means that we have nothing else to go on except conjecture, the same logic should hold true for the problem of the authorship of the gospels. Since we do not have any physical autographed originals of the gospels, and since the authors of the gospels do not identify themselves anywhere by name, it must be the case that it is only the conjecture of early Church tradition that attributed these anonymous gospels to the convenient names of “Mark”, “Matthew”, “Luke”, and “John”.
Coming back again to the issue of the use of liberal versus conservative (ie. believing) biblical scholarship, Ally should have explained that even the most hardened atheist scholars should be able to believe that Jesus claimed divinity without this fact necessarily conflicting with their anti-supernatural presuppositions, since there is nothing supernatural about the idea of a man claiming to be God per se; it is rather the conclusion that such a man is right in his claim that would require a belief in God and the supernatural. For example, most of us do not believe that the moon is made of cheese, but we can still very easily accept the fact that a mad man on the street last week taught and claimed that the moon is made of cheese. Why then do these liberal scholars not accept, for example, the “I am” statements found in the Gospel of John? The reason cannot simply be their supposed anti-supernatural biases. There must be other reasons, and it is these other reasons that should have been explored in the debate by Ally.
As for the alleged inconsistency of Muslims in referring to liberal NT scholars on the issue of whether Jesus claimed divinity or not, White should acknowledge that even critical non-Muslim scholars of Islam who want to apply redaction criticism to the Qur’an do not have any problem with the idea that the Prophet Muhammad claimed to be a Prophet of God. “Prophet of God” is a supernatural concept, but a man claiming to be the Prophet of God is not a supernatural concept or event. Atheists cannot accept that Muhammad was a Prophet of God, but they can and do easily accept that Muhammad claimed and believed himself to be a Prophet of God. Similarly, the most liberal, critical, and even unbelieving and atheistic of New Testament scholars generally have no problem with the idea of Jesus having believed himself to be a prophet of God and the Messiah (both of which are supernatural claims for a man to make), but they do have major reservations about the idea of Jesus having claimed himself to be God or part of a Triune Godhead. Why do these liberal and/or unbelieving scholars that White automatically dismisses accept that Jesus made certain types of supernatural claims (ie. claiming to be the Anointed One of God) but not others (ie. claiming to be God Himself)? The answer cannot just be “because they have an anti-supernatural bias”. That answer in itself is inconsistent and highly unacademic.
In summary, there were many interesting arguments and counter-arguments that were brought up in this debate, but time did not allow the two speakers to delve deeper into their arguments and much of the debate got stuck on issues like so-and-so’s naturalistic presuppositions and so-and-so’s anti-supernatural worldview. The very constraining time restrictions and their faithful observation and enforcement by the moderator were in some ways debilitating to both sides, not to mention frustrating to the long line of questioners who had queued up to ask their questions to the speakers (it was quite easily the longest line of questioners we have ever seen at any event, and that itself serves as quite the compliment to the presenters). In a way, it was the debate that never was, since the actual topic was largely sidelined for the purpose of debating other secondary issues. Nonetheless, both speakers are to be congratulated for their work, past and present, and such events should serve as a catalyst for both communities to continue to engage one another in a spirit of friendly and civil dialogue and exchange.
Taqiyah: The Lie Made against Islam
Posted: March 15, 2012 Filed under: Debates, Islam, Uncategorized | Tags: Articles By Shadid Lewis 2 Comments »This is the full free version of our DVD by the same title. Raymond Ibrahim claims its not true , that Taqiyah is only used when a Muslims life is in immediate danger. I said he was wrong and prove he and others who make the claim are all wrong! Raymond, I will debate you in a public forum if you still claim other wise. See the evidence here
Refuting Anti-Muslim Apologetics Concerning Tawriya (creative lying as the bigots claim)
Posted: March 14, 2012 Filed under: Islam, Uncategorized | Tags: Articles By Shadid Lewis 2 Comments »So, Raymond Ibrahim decided to respond to my refutation of his false claim that Tawriya gave Muslims open and unlimited permission to “creatively lie”. 1st off, Shadid means strong , firm, vigorous.(English-Arabic translator dictionary By F.Steingass pg.881) He attempts to mis-translate the meaning of my name, I assume to once again convey the idea of the big, bad, evil,” muzloom boogie man”.In my article he also takes issue with what he claims are “grammatical and punctuation errors, in the interest of readability, I have corrected the more egregious when quoting him.)”Thank you Raymond, although you over exaggerated 1 or 2 typos and left out apostrophes as if my entire article was riddled with grammatical and punctuation errors which it was not. The issue is about tawriya and not english grammar and punctuation. Stick to the topic, snob!
Raymond claims :
“Although this response—poorly written, poorly argued—would normally be ignored, I address it for three reasons: 1) To date, it is the only rebuttal I have seen from a Muslim concerning tawriya; 2) Far from rejecting tawriya, it actually validates it (the author spends his time chasing red herrings, not disproving the doctrine); 3) It is a good example of the speciousness and sophistry employed by those who try to downplay or rationalize some of Islam’s more problematic doctrines, in this case, tawriya.”
No Raymond , you addressed it because I clearly exposed your lies and attempts to demonize and spread mis-trust of Muslims with such a claim. I exposed how you omitted key statements made by the sources you claim to cite , that totally refute your claim. For those who missed it Raymond claimed that ,”tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances—including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah—provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him. Raymond totally ignores this, and instead makes a strawman , claiming I failed to disprove the doctrine. What I did Raymond was disprove your claim about the alleged doctrine, which was that tawriya allowed Muslims to lie in all circumstances. The sources cited clearly did not say it permitted lying and limited the use of tawriya rather than giving an open-ended permission for its use. I even exposed how Scholars discouraged its use such as Ibn Tamiyah who’s view was that it is haraam( not allowed) to resort to deliberate ambiguity if there is no reason or need to do so. Such statements Raymond omitted from his article , and I called him on it.
Raymond goes on and says of course the Muslim authorities do not bother pointing out that they mean justice and injustice as defined by Sharia; that’s a given. Wrong, once again the very sources he claimed to use say other wise and even gave universal examples of what would be considered injustice. ( i.e If it is a means of taking something wrongfully or depriving someone of their rights, then it is haraam( NOT ALLOWED) in that case. This is the guideline in this matter).
He attempts to give an example of how Islamic Law and western law view right and wrong. He gives the example of Apostacy and says western law acknowledges religious freedom, tell that to the Muslim women in France who want to wear hijab, or the Muslims in Switzerland banned from building Mosque with minarets etc. And he is wrong , Islam does allow freedom of religion.Sure Raymond, the West wont execute you for apostacy in religion, but they will execute you or imprison you for TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES against their secular beliefs and systems. Is that really a different view on right and wrong? The point is ,in the West they deem it correct to execute you for leaving and going against their secular beliefs and systems.
He then goes on to claim that I distracted the issue by making irrelevant points such as pointing out how he omitted the fact that Sheikh Al-Munajjid discouraged the use of tawiriya by stating “excessive use of puns leads to lying”. How does this distract from the issue? It proves that your claim, Mr. Ibrahim that this doctrine is encouraged is false and yet again exposed how you left out key statements that refute your claim.
Seems the only one guilty of “creative lying” is you Mr. Ibrahim. He continues and says I brought a ridiculous argument when I exposed how he mis-used a reference that was about Taqiyah and not tawriya. What is ridiculous is Raymond using a source that is clearly about taqiyah to try to make a bogus argument about tawriya. And yes it is true ,that taqiyya deals with a situation only when a Muslim’s life is in immediate danger , he said not true. I ‘ll debate you on that , you are wrong!
Better for you , Raymond to prove such a narration actually came from Muhammad than to be upset that I exposed how you used a reference that had nothing to do with tawriya.Next Raymond is upset that I exposed how he mis-used a hadith and drew a false conclusion , not supported by any Islamic teaching. Raymond makes a fool of himself asking what is the purpose of the hadith which tells one what to do if they pass gas while in the middle of prayer. The purpose is clear. It tells you what to do when you pass gas in the middle of prayer. The fact that the hadith states you hold your nose and leave the prayer lets everyone know who passed gas. It’s obviously the person that held their nose and left the prayer is the one responsible for the smell, thus his false claim that some one else is left to take the blame is nonsense.
In light of the above, its clear to the reader that Raymond is just upset that I exposed his deception and clear omission of key statements from his sources that refute his claim concerning tawriya. No where do I accept in my article that Islam permits lying nor do the sources he cited say so, which is why it was warned that excessive use of puns leads to lying. If it was understood that tawriya condones lies why say excessive use of it leads to lying then? Would it not already be lying? Thus Raymond fails at his rebuttal.Its Raymond who strains as one constipated to make a rebuttal not me. I clearly exposed your lies and acts of omission.
Again, make no mistake, these claims are just refurbished old Nazi propaganda claims once used against Jews. In fact today you can still find such claims on the internet still propagated by Neo Nazis and White racist groups. Many of these bigots and racist will in fact link to Raymond’s article as proof to justify their bigotry against Muslims. Way to go Raymond. Joseph Goebbels and Julius Streicher would be proud.
Jibreel’s Convert Story
Posted: March 8, 2012 Filed under: Spiritual Truth, Uncategorized 4 Comments »I recently received an email from a Muslim convert requesting his experienced to be posted and published, and so here it is:
Tawriya: Islamic Doctrine of ‘Creative Lying’? Response to Raymond Ibrahim
Posted: March 2, 2012 Filed under: Islam, Uncategorized | Tags: Articles By Shadid Lewis 17 Comments »Here we go again! Another lie created against Islam in an attempt to demonize and spread mistrust of Muslims. Be aware this is the same tactic used against Jews in Nazi Germany. Propaganda was created stating Jews had a teaching that they too could lie to gentiles when ever they pleased and we all know what that lead to. And so here now in the 21st century the bigots are using the same claims and tactics but the target is now Muslims. I read the article of Raymond Ibrahim posted on Frontpagemag.com and I just had to respond.
Have any of you checked the sources cited in his article?Most of the anti- islamic bigots would answer no. Heres what the very sources he cited said about Tawriya which they said means deliberate ambiguity rather than creative lying.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said this should not be used unjustly. If you use the pun of injustice it’s not permissible. The author of the article seems to be aware that this refuted his claim so he add in parenthesis ((“injustice” as defined by Sharia, of course, not Western standards).Says who? None of the sources he cited said as only defined by sharia. A commonly known wrong is a commonly known wrong just the same in Islam( stealing, cheating, murder etc is wrong and accepted as such in Islam).
Sheikh Al-Munajjid another source cited by the article’s author said Excessive use of puns leads to lying. So the claim that this can be used when ever and where ever is a lie in it self . Al Munajjid said this is used for embarrassing circumstances. Yet the author would have us believe Muslims can use this to lie in business transactions, and to take peoples property and other commonly accepted wrong activities.
Another source cited by the article’s author which he ignores is :
Al-Nawawi who said The Deliberate ambiguity is permissible if the need arises or a legitimate interest, and should not be a great deal so to be a habit, nor to use it to gain the right to void or escape payment. If it is a means of taking something wrongfully or depriving someone of their rights, then it is haraam( NOT ALLOWED) in that case. This is the guideline in this matter. Emphasis on** should not be a great deal so to be a habit, nor to use it to gain the right to void or escape payment .Nor used to take something wrongfully or deprive someone of their rights.**
Mr. Ibraham told us Muhammad is recorded saying “Allah has commanded me to equivocate among the people inasmuch as he has commanded me to establish [religious] obligations”; and “I have been sent with obfuscation”; and “whoever lives his life in dissimulation dies a martyr” (Sami Mukaram, Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30).
However the source he cites clearly is Al Taqiyya Fi Al Islam, London: Mu’assisat al-Turath al-Druzi, 2004, p. 30). Did you catch it? The source is about AL TAQIYYA not about TAWRIYA. And taqiyah deals with a situation only when a Muslims life is in immediate danger and they utter words of disbelief because they are threatened with being killed or tortured. Thus this citation does not support any proof for “creative lying”.
Another hadith was cited which Ibrahim says ,in a canonical hadith, Muhammad said: “If any of you ever pass gas or soil yourselves during prayers [breaking wudu], hold your nose and leave” (Sunan Abu Dawud): ” Holding one’s nose and leaving implies smelling something offensive—which is true—though people will think it was someone else who committed the offense.”
Those familiar with this hadith can quickly see that Ibrahim has added his own conclusion about this hadith not endorsed by the islamic position. No where is it taught that this hadith teaches for one to pass gas and leave thereby allowing some one else to take the blame for passing gas and the offensive smell . This is a clear example of how these haters just make up blatant lies to taint Islamic teachings and draw false conclusions based on their over zealous bias against Islam.
Lastly its important to note that Some scholars were of the view that it is haraam to resort to deliberate ambiguity if there is no reason or need to do so. This was the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him). See al-Ikhtiyaaraat, p. 563.
So as we see Raymond totally failed to mention those parts that clearly inform us that “this should not be used unjustly. If you use the pun of injustice it’s not permissible” . Or “ should not be a great deal so to be a habit, nor to use it to gain the right to void or escape payment”.”Nor used to take something wrongfully or deprive someone of their rights” or that” Excessive use of puns leads to lying” . Thus it’s not something that Islam pushes the believers to enact as the haters would have you believe.
Why Muslims Get Angry
Posted: February 21, 2012 Filed under: articles by Sami Zaatari, Islamophobia, Uncategorized Leave a comment »
Does Quran 2:256 show that Islam is a religion of peace? Response to David Wood.
Posted: February 2, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Abrogation, No Compulsion in islam, Quran 42 Comments »The anti -islamist bigot David Wood has made a short video asserting that Islam is not a religion of peace based on Quran 2:256. He claims based on the methodology laid out in the Quran ,that 2:256 is done away with. However the verses he refers to, Quran 2:106 and Quran 16:101 no where lay out such a method where Quran 2:256 would be done away with. No where does Allah say he has abrogated 2:256 nor is there any report where Muhammad said 2:256 is abrogated. This is the strongest proof that David is wrong. And no, the “I have been ordered to fight ” hadith does not abrogate 2:256 either.
Al Nawawi in his commentary on the 40 Hadith states concerning the”I have been ordered to fight” hadith that;
“The majority of the scholars think it refers to the Arab Polytheists” (pg.505 “commentary on the 40 Hadith”)
Ibn Hajr we are told says this hadith has been abrogated( rather than it abrogating any Quranic verses) by later rulings concerning jizyah and peace agreements. ( pg 505 “Commentary on the 40 Hadith” Al Nawawi).
Further more there are ample verses in Quran the highest source of guidance in Islam that clearly state to Muhammad concerning the disbelievers rejection of islam that:
” yet your people still reject it even though it is the truth. Say, ‘I have not been put in charge of you.”-Quran 6:66
“We have not sent you to be their guardian: your only duty is to deliver the message.”-Quran 42:48
I could site over a dozen other such verses making it clear that 2:256 is not done away with because similar verses ( over a dozen) like the 2 just cited above, support the same idea of no compulsion to accept islam. Muhammad and the muslims are told over and over again that he/they can not force people to accept Islam and that the duty given is to convey the message.
So in order to attempt to support his claim David refers to the tafsir of Ibn Kathir.Again remember the highest source of tafsir of the Quran is the Quran by the Quran. (pg 123,124,129 Ulum Al Quran By Ahmad Von denffer).David attempts to sway the viewers by claiming Ibn Kathir is “The Greatest” sunni commentator of the Quran and claim Ibn Kathir says 2:256 is abrogated. When you listen to the evidence given by David, you notice no evidence is provided where Allah or the Messenger say Quran 2:256 has been abrogated. All we see are the differing opinons of various scholars but no conclusive evidence that the verse is in fact abrogated. Those that hold that the verse is not abroagted such as Al Razi state :
“That he should be forced to accept faith is not lawful in this world, which is a world of trial.”(pg 254 “The Quran and Its interpreters” By Mahmoud Ayoub)
Sayyid Qutb :
“It(Islam) is the system which asserts that “there is no compulsion in religion”. (pg 255 “The Quran and its interpreters”)
You can find many who hold the position that 2:256 is not abrogated.Those who hold that 2:256 is not abrogated have the judgement in their favor, as stated before. No verse or report traced to Muhammad states that 2:256 was done away with. In fact concerning 9:5 which they claim Ibn kathir says abrogates 2:256, we read that Ibn kathir merely gives THE OPINION of a person by the name of Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim who said, “It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.” Notice this opinion is not traced back to Allah or the Messenger, which is why our opponents claims are baseless.
Further more I wonder why our opponents never mention the fact that many scholars say that Quran 9:5 it self is abrogated .Imam al-Qurtubi mentions that al-Dahhak, ‘Ata’, and others are of the opinion that the above-mentioned verse (Qur’an 47:4) abrogates the “Verse of the Sword.” Al-Thawri relates from Juwaybir, that al-Dahhak said, “Slay the polytheists wherever you find them… (9:5)” is abrogated by the verse, “Then set them free or ransom them….(47:4).”And of course these verses were in the context of battle with the Pagans who attacked the Muslims 1st (Quran 9:13). Yet our opponents never mention this view.
We see then that David is wrong in his claims concerning Quran 2:256. The verse was not abrogated , nor forgotten, and there are over a dozen verses that support and confirm what 2:256 says.Further more no one has the authority to claim a verse is done away if Allah nor the messenger gave no authority to say so.
David ends his video by making the claim that Muslims who still cite the verse 2:256 are using Taqiyyah. 1st of all David uses the word taqiyyah wrongly.See here what Taqiyyah really means http://the-case-for-islam.webs.com/caseforislamvideos.htm and how the haters are refuted who use taqiyyah as a claim against Islam and Muslims. He uses the word as if it means Muslim are boldly lying about Islam and covering its true teachings. Yet no stated teaching on Taqiyyah that I have seen condones such a practice. This is clearly what the anti -muslim bigots have created themselves. The only lying and deception being done, is that done by David and his cohorts. 1st of all he pretends that there are no other views about 2:256 and that its engraved in stone that 2:256 is abrogated. We already have shown that is not the case. There are plenty of scholars in favor of the position that 2:256 is not abroagted, thus if muslims still cite the verse they can not be charged with hiding any thing, as this is a valid position endorsed by many islamic scholars. The attempts to demonise and spread prejudiced about Muslims is shameful. I once said that I did not think David was a bigot of the likes of Robert Spencer and others. I was wrong! His fear mongering videos about Arab immigrants and false information about the alleged threat of Islam in the west or America, has clearly exposed the bigot that is David Wood.
Adam Deen on BBC ‘The Big questions’ :Is there evidence for God? 15/1/12
Posted: January 25, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized 60 Comments »Taking part are the priest and particle physicist, Dr Andrew Pinsent; The Times columnist, David Aaronovitch; the Muslim thinker, Adam Deen; leading atheist scientist, Professor Peter Atkins; bible scholar, Francesca Stavrakopoulou; author, Charles Foster; Patsy McKie, founder of Mothers Against Violence; and the former Triad gangster turned Methodist Minister, Kim Goh.
Those that Convert to Christianity and Prosletyse: An Australian Experience
Posted: January 13, 2012 Filed under: Uncategorized 23 Comments »باسم الله الرحمان الرحيم
We’re continually told by Christians how wonderful Christianity is for the human being: How it makes the unholy be able to stand before the Holy, how the Holy Spirit guides the Christian to right action and how beautiful it is to spread it to Muslims.
This is exactly the sort of thing that was told to Nasir Ahmadi and his wife Zahra when they immigrated to Australia from Iran 5 years ago and converted from Islam to Christianity. Zahra changed her name to ‘Mandy’ and both she and her husband then dedicated their lives to converting Muslims to Christianity.
On the 18th of December 2011, Nasir claimed that his wife had gone missing. He, and his church colleagues (especially Danny Nahlia) started claiming that she had been kidnapped by Muslims. This allegation gathered so much momentum that it was presented in the mainstream media (for example, this article from SMH).
The article states:
THE husband and friends of an Iranian woman missing in Victoria since December 16 fear she has been abducted by Muslim hardliners because of her attempts to convert Muslims to Christianity….
Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries yesterday sent an email to his mailing list calling for ”urgent prayer” for Mandi and the family. He said he had known the family for eight years and they took a leading role in helping Muslim asylum seekers.
Mr Nalliah and the ministries were the subject of a complaint they vilified Muslims in a 2002 seminar on jihad, which was upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal but reversed by the Supreme Court.
Yesterday he told the Herald Mrs Ahmadi ”really stuck her neck out” trying to convert Muslims and her husband was sometimes very worried for her. He said her zeal had come to the attention of militants, possibly in Iran itself.
To support the written word, we got these sorts of news items at dinner time. Notice the emotion expressed by Nasir at the loss of his wife. Take a look here .
So Danny Nahlia had another go at Muslims, apparently we’re all so violent and Nasir is a wonderful example of a Muslim that embraced a ‘better’ way of living. This poor man had his wife kidnapped by those violent Muslims for converting them to Christianity and sooner or later the power of prayer would turn up some clues or, better yet, her safe return.
Sadly, Nasir wasn’t telling the truth. Detectives in Victoria Police dug up a newly laid concrete slab at the Ahmadi family home and found Zahra’s remains underneath. Within a few hours, Nasir confessed to killing his wife. The sad conclusion to this horrible story can be found here
Ahmadi had reported Zahara missing two days after she vanished on December 16 last year.
The couple came to Australia with their two children as Iranian refugees in 1999, and later converted from Islam to Christianity.
Zahara was actively involved in converting Muslims to Christianity, which leading her husband and their church to repeatedly make claims that Muslim hardliners could have abducted her.
“Maybe somebody kidnapped (her),” her husband told Network Ten earlier this week.
“We don’t like you, you Christian and you convert the people to Christianity.”
I don’t expect Danny Nahlia to apologise to Muslims anytime soon for the horrible allegations he laid. What will be interesting is if the other Christians that strongly supported Nasir will now continue to stand by him.
At least their prayer for the truth was answered. Perhaps, not quite in the way they expected.
The After life – With Adam Deen & Rob Scott
Posted: September 22, 2011 Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Dawah, Islam, lectures, Uncategorized, Videos Leave a comment »Muslim & Christian perspective on the after life.
What does the after life mean to us?
Is there any reason to believe in the after life?
Held at the London Muslim Center (LMC)
