Wednesday, January 9, 2008

Nadir Ahmed, Jihad, and Taqiyya

In his debate with Nadir, Sam Shamoun made an important point about Taqiyya (the Islamic doctrine that Muslims are permitted to lie for various reasons). During his reign as prophet of Islam, Muhammad exhibited three stages in his dealings with non-Muslims. In the first stage, Muhammad was horribly outnumbered in Mecca, and couldn’t have won a fight. Thus, he preached peace and tolerance. In the second stage, Muhammad moved to Medina, and he had many dedicated followers who were willing to fight for him. At this point, Muslims fought defensive wars, robbed caravans, and assassinated people. In the third stage, Islam was dominant and powerful. Once Islam had control, non-Muslims were forced to submit and were subjected to humiliation or death.

Muslim countries are currently in stage three; hence, in Muslim countries, Christians and Jews often live in fear and are not permitted to worship or preach freely. Pagans are practically non-existent, because they are treated even more harshly.

In the West, however, Muslims are in stage one. They are outnumbered and can’t hope to win a violent struggle. It isn’t surprising, then, to find Western Muslims preaching peace and tolerance, just as Muhammad did when he was in the minority.

Nevertheless, there are two groups of Muslims preaching tolerance in the West. First, many Muslims have grown up with Western values, and they prize freedom of speech and freedom of religion just as their Western neighbors do. Since these Muslims believe that peace and tolerance are to be prized, they assume that Muhammad must have prized peace and tolerance. Hence, when these Muslims read the Qur’an and the Hadith, they are drawn to Muhammad’s teachings from the early Meccan period, and they ignore his more radical teachings. In other words, these Muslims really believe that Islam is a religion of peace.

But there is a second group of Western Muslims, who know that as soon as Islam becomes dominant, freedom will be eradicated, and non-Muslims will be forced to submit. However, they understand that they are outnumbered at the present time, and that the West values peace and tolerance. Thus, these Muslims preach peace and tolerance, knowing that violence will eventually come. That is, this group doesn’t really believe that Islam is a religion of peace. They are simply deceiving people until Islam becomes dominant (i.e. they are practicing Taqiyya).

Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether a Muslim falls into the first category or the second. Yet occasionally we find proof that Muslim calls for peace and tolerance are hollow (e.g. when we learn that CAIR has known ties to terrorists).

The question I would like to address is whether Nadir Ahmed really believes in peace or whether he is practicing Taqiyya. In his debate with Sam Shamoun, Nadir argued that Islam is a religion of peace, and that Muslims are permitted to fight in order to stop oppression, but not for much else. Does he really believe this? Not at all! And we know this because some of Nadir’s fellow Muslims have posted some of his emails.

Consider two such emails, posted on the Muslim website “Answering Christianity.” Keep in mind that these emails were both written by Nadir Ahmed, who preaches that Islam is a peaceful religion. (Note: I have covered some of Nadir’s foul language with ***.)

First Email:

Osama, you f***ing kaffir.. how dare you insult our Prophet(P) by saying he has a mental disease wallahi, if I ever meet you on the street.... youre done.... and it WILL happen. watch your back. and as for your gay lover Saami, the fact that you support this piece of s**t osama.. the same holds true for you. I have ways and means... I promise u. I have made a screen shot of your defamation of our Prophet(P), so you dont try to hide your kuffar. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed

Notice what we have here. Osama has attempted to respond to a difficult fact about Muhammad, namely, that he was the victim of black magic. (For more on this, see my article “A Bewitched Prophet?”) Nadir disagrees with Osama’s view, so what does he do? Does he attempt to reason with him? Does he present evidence to show that Osama is wrong? No. Instead, he threatens Osama with physical violence!

We see the a similar phenomenon in another email from Nadir.

Second Email:

osama watch your back

you f***ing kaffir.. you think you can arm bar me? lol ill be the one breaking your elbow, then, I'll triangle choke you and force you to take back your insults against Prophet Muhammed(P) .... then I'll ground and pound your ugly face. It's going to be great.. Ill pass your guard in matter of minutes and mount you... and Ill slamm my fist right in your eye socket, and I'll say.. "what did you say about our Prophet(P)?" "who is old and stupid now Osama?" Let's do it this weekend. You can come down to my ju jitzu gym. Ill arrange it with the fellas down here. or did you want me to come up to your gym ? This is JIHAD. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed

Notice that after Nadir has threatened Osama, he adds “This is JIHAD.” So, according to Nadir, Jihad is attacking a person physically for holding different views.

Is this what he said during his debate with Sam? Certainly not. During the debate, Nadir said that Muslims are permitted to fight in order to end oppression. But Osama has not oppressed Nadir. All he has done is express a view with which Nadir disagrees. And Nadir responds with a call for Jihad—a violent attack against Osama.

Interestingly, Nadir wanted to arrange a physical confrontation after this exchange. We should take note of how Nadir’s partner at Examine the Truth, Jalal Abualrub, reacted when he heard that two followers of the “Religion of Peace” were going to fight to settle their differences. Did he attempt to reconcile the two apologists? Not at all. Rather, he advised Nadir to have the fight recorded as evidence that Nadir had won the fight! (See here for details.)

All of this shows that Nadir really believes that Islam allows him to physically assault others because of what they believe and say. Why, then, did he claim during the debate that Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to attack people because of their beliefs? Nadir is practicing Taqiyya here. He knows the truth, but he doesn’t want his listeners to know it.

Perhaps even more interesting is that Muslims do not openly rebuke Nadir more often. If a Christian apologist were going around threatening people with physical violence, Christians everywhere would rebuke him and let him know that Christianity does not tolerate such behavior. But Nadir is known for threatening people, and yet there is no Muslim outcry, just as there is no significant Muslim outcry over the Islamic violence around the world. We must wonder, then, why so many followers of the “Religion of Peace” simply do not care that their brothers and sisters are killing in the name of Allah.


Nadir Ahmed said...

lol... man I am cracking up at Shameless Shamoun, here... I believe both me and Osama made it clear that we train in Brazilian jujitzu, and I was going to kick his ass in that sport... which is perfectly legal, and has become one of the most popular sports in the country. And NO ONE GETS HURT because your opponent can tap out at anytime, all gyms have the same rules and regulations and have a referee.. and they welcome people to come down and spar. It motivates everyone. That is why I asked to Osama to come down to my gym.


David Wood said...


Nice try. What does "Shameless Shamoun" have to do with any of this? I got this material from one of your fellow Muslims, not from Sam. You're suffering from "Shamoun-o-phobia." I would be too if I had just debated him.

No one gets hurt? In the first email, you said you were going to attack him on the street, not in a gym. In the second email, you said that once he was at your mercy, you were going to drive your fist through his eye socket.

Do you think that no one gets hurt when a fist goes through his eye socket, Nadir?

B said...

David said...

All of this shows that Nadir really believes that Islam allows him to physically assault others because of what they believe and say. Why, then, did he claim during the debate that Islam doesn’t allow Muslims to attack people because of their beliefs? Nadir is practicing Taqiyya here. He knows the truth, but he doesn’t want his listeners to know it.

Well it didn't cross David's mind that Nadir committed a sin here and wasn't practicing what he was preaching and that he knew that he did wrong. Obviously, Nadir's behaviour here is inexcusable. But, Nadir wouldn't (i serously hope not) continue to justify this kind of language and behaviour after coming out of his angry tantrum.

Shamoun's abusive insults surely don't mean that Shamoun believes that Christianity approves of it. (and he still hasn't publicly apologized for this behaviour)

Now regarding the argument of Taqiyyah that Shamoun brought up in the debate and that one could see in his debate material here I really don't understand the problem or the argument.

Those scholars are saying that if you fear persecution you can pretend to be something else. What on earth is wrong with this? if someone puts a gun to my head and he tells me that he will execute me and my family if i don't profess disbelief in Islam, what would i do? Well, I would profess disbelief with my mouth AND NOT WITH MY HEART that i left Islam in order to save my life and my family as well. this is a mercy from God and i dont see anything immoral with it what so ever.

in regards to Muslims being friends with non Muslims in order to bring them closer to Islam.... well again what is wrong with that?

By the way, this is not only applicable to non-Muslims but to Muslims as well. What do i mean by this?

our scholars have said that if you are a righteous practicing Muslim, you are not allowed to befriend a Muslim who commits many sins for there is a fear that he might influence you and tempt you. When scholars say 'being friends', what they mean is going out with them and hanging around with them by going to the restaurants together and so on. However, if you feel that YOU CAN influence them and correct their faults, then it is okay. So the same is with non-Muslims. I will not let my son be friends with a non Muslim if i know that there is a chance that the non Muslim will influence my child.

ANY PARENT IS LIKE THIS. You won't let your kid and hang around with bad friends that will influence him. But if you know that he can influence them, then great let him go.

Now, just because I won't be a 'friend' to someone, that doesn't mean that he is my enemy in the sense that I am at war with him. That is a complete misunderstanding and only shows ignorance of the person putting forth this kind of reasoning.

Plus, these Christians are hypocrites. Their own religion teaches them that they must behave properly and nicely 'so that they can be like a light on the top of a hill' and show people the beauty of Christianity. that is the Christian's main intention in life and thats why he would be kind and friendly with people.

The false Biblical God hates sinners and deceives so again these Christians continue to employ their double standards.

But when you bring these issues up they scream 'tu quo que', so when on earth are we ever going to discuss these issues so that it won't be a 'tu quo que'?

its funny how David in his debate with Ali Ataie claims that there are things in his Bible that bother or disturb him. Thats hilarious. imagine, someone being disturbed by some things found in his holy book. yet, despite being bothered by these things, he still submits to them and accepts them from God. But his double standards won't allow him to do the same thing with Islam.




Well just because David says that something in the Bible bothers him doesnt mean it isnt inspired and that the Bible should be viewed as less Holy because certain issues bothered David and probably others, for an example I myself is bothered by certain things in the Bible, example God destroying mankind during the time of Noah. How ever some people may be bothered by certain things in the Bible but, the reason we believe in the Bible even though it may bother some people its not how someone feels that makes it a Revelation or not but God himself. And God has plans set before creation of mankind and it doesnt change because a certain group is bothered. Where not the Isrealites bothered for 40 days and 40 nights does that make the messagse God gave Moses less of a revelation cause they were bothered? And would it be okay for them not to submit to the message and obey it cause they are bothered? Was not Moses bothered when God told him to stand up for his people? yes he was, but the reason we submit and accept the message of God is because God has his best interest for us. Just ask JOB, ask Peter was he bothered when Christ was killed? ask the Disciple were they bothered when PAUL who once killed Christains says he is now an apostle? ask the disciples were they bothered when judas was choose by jesus the same man who they later found out that betrayed him? But we accept and submit to a reavelation and the Bible cause God has a best interest no matter what and how we may feel.