MUSLIM RESPONSE VIDEO:
I find this response interesting, since I can't figure out what the video is complaining about. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the article:
Worshippers are repeatedly told they must lead separate lives from non-believers and not tolerate other religions. Christian teachings are described as "vile and disgusting, an abomination."
The point of this passage, clearly, is that the mosque claims to promote moderation and dialogue with other faiths, and yet, behind closed doors, the message can hardly be called "moderate." Is the writer doing anything wrong by pointing out the fact that the message the mosque claims to promote is quite different from the one it actually promotes?
The video also complains about the following passage:
Unbelievers ('kuffaars') are described in one DVD as: "Evil, wicked, mischievous people - you can see the evil in their face". Whilst Jews, "have abominated, filthy, disgusting gross belief - their time will come like every other evil person's time will come."
The Muslim response video complains that "kuffaars" is written in parentheses and quotation marks. But the writing is entirely correct. Parentheses are supposed to go around a word if a translation is added, and quotation marks go around the word if it's being quoted. Hence, the writer uses both parentheses and quotation marks. How dare he be grammatically correct! Again, our Muslim friend complains about nothing.
The Muslim response video also claims that the West is inconsistent, since this particular article points out the fact that Muslims are saying offensive things about Christians. Apparently, our Muslim friend thinks that the media will never point a finger at anyone who says anything about Islam. Is this true? Were Muslims on vacation when Jerry Vines called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile"? Did they miss the media attention given to Falwell or Franklin Graham when they dared criticize Islam?
"Undercover Mosque" is doing the world a great service by proving, conclusively, that many Muslims who pretend to be moderate and peaceful are simply pretending. This is indisputable. Muslims feel the need to respond to the facts. But with nothing to say, they can only complain about nothing. "Undercover Mosque" complains that Muslims are deceiving us, and that they are preaching violence. The Muslim response video complains about parentheses. Talk about inconsistency!
I think that everyone should read the article carefully, then watch the video response and see how pointless the Muslim response is.
I encountered Sami a couple of times on paltalk...He loves too Quote only 50% of his source.
Lets just look at the (hole) hadeeth he was refering too:
Ibn Shihab reported that a man in the time of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) acknowledged having committed adultery and confessed it four times. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) then ordered and he was stoned. " (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.350)
So the man was stoned too death.Why muhammad didn't show mercy and forgive him?
Strangely though, when it came to a friend of Muhammad, who admitted having committed a punishable offence (illegal sex, perhaps), Muhammad did not apply this Qur’anic rule.
Sahih Bukhari: Volume 8, Book 82, Number 812:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
While I was with the Prophet a man came and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the legal punishment on me'.' The Prophet did not ask him what he had done. Then the time for the prayer became due and the man offered prayer along with the Prophet , and when the Prophet had finished his prayer, the man again got up and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the punishment on me according to Allah's Laws." The Prophet said, "Haven't you prayed with us?' He said, "Yes." The Prophet said, "Allah has forgiven your sin." or said, "....your legally punishable sin."
The same Sami that ran when I posed the challenge to him to debate the claim that Muhammad is in the Bible?
Undercover Mosque is right to expose the deceptions of Islam. Sami always has a lot of words but no substance whatsoever. Sami totally misses the point that UM is not about “being against Islam” but about exposing the lie that we have nothing to fear of Islam. In particular those two-faced Muslims who claim to be moderate in your face, but behind closed doors they are viciously un-hatching their terrorist strategies. We don’t fear fundamentalist Muslims, those that openly declare war on us. We have everything to fear about people who smile in our faces, but in their hearts they curse us. That is what we call hypocrites. All these words from Sami on the complaints of UM, but not an iota about the deceit his fellow Muslims engage in. A display that is not without consequences for him, since it makes him look bad. If this is Islam, the total outrage when something bad is said about Islam as a reaction to Islamic bigotry with the total unwillingness of self proclaimed Islamic apologists like Sami Zaatari to condemn such behavior, then Islam is without merit.
The undeniable proof of the deception in Islam undeniably proven when the spokes member of the King Fahd Academy tried to distance itself from the verse about Jews being pigs and Christians being swine. (at about 7:45 into part 4 of the 5-part series) They tried to explain the implications away by justifying the verse as “relating to an Old Testament event”. The King Fahd Academy is so used to lying that they shot themselves in their own foot. How can an “Old Testament event” have anything to do with Christians? There were no Christians until 5 centuries after the last book of the Old Testament was written. That’s like criticizing Islam based on a Talmudic story! The correspondence is totally lacking. This is the worst case of taqiya I have ever encountered.
That’s why I trust no Muslim based on his words. Only the deeds of a Muslims might persuade me to believe him.
Post a Comment