Monday, July 6, 2009

Propaganda Parallels: ISNA and Dearborn

Nabeel and I spent this past weekend at the Islamic Society of North America's national convention. We watched many presentations, had a number of conversations, and did plenty of recording. Here's the first video of our ISNA series.


Nakdimon said...

WOW! Isn’t it just comical how Muslims tend to not know their own scriptures when you ask tough questions? I find it odd that you would put ignorant people at a booth with a big banner that says “WE ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT ISLAM”.

They might as well put a Christian there, he would know more than those Muslims they put at those booths.

But if I was there the convo would go something like this:

Me: Hello how are you today
Muslim: Doing good alhamdulillah
Me: So I can ask you a question, right?
Muslim: Sure you can. I will answer insha’Allah
Me: Good. I would like to ask a question about Surah 9:29. Can you tell me the implications of this verse? Because I keep hearing that Islam has peaceful intentions but this verse, among others, kinda really bothers me.
Muslim: Well, that might be because you read it out of context, sir. And by the way, why don’t you ask a question about Surah 5:32. Are you familiar with that verse?
Me: Oh yeah, I am familiar with it, but...
Muslim: Good, because you should know that it says that “whosoever slays…”. [he finishes the quote, and continues] So as you can see, we, Muslims are not allowed to kill people. We are only to kill when we defend ourselves.
Me: But sir, besides the fact that this verse is also found in the Jewish Talmud long before Islam and it was not revealed by God but an commentary of a rabbi on Genesis, now its you that is reading it out of context. You didn’t give me the whole verse. It says it was ordained for the Jews, not for Muslims. But the next verse is for Muslims, if I can recall correctly. Can you read that verse, please?
Muslim: [hesitates at first and then reads it]
Me: So, sir, what does that actually say that Muslims should do with those that speak against Muhammad?
Muslim: Sir where did you get that from? This is not about people that speak against Muhammad. It doesn’t say that. It says “those who make mischief”.
Me: Ok then what exactly is mischief? It doesn’t say, does it?
Muslim: Well, I really don’t know the answer to that. Maybe you should try to get an answer from a more knowledgeable person than me.
Me: So you don’t know? But doesn’t the Quran say about itself in Surah 6:114 and Surah 41:3 that this book explains it’s verses in detail? If that is true, where do we find the explanation of that verse?
Muslim: …
Me: So since there is no answer to either Surah 9:29 and Surah 5:33 I will take my own interpretation and conclude that these verses tell people that don’t believe what the Quran says should be fought by Muslims. So where is the peaceful intention?
Muslim: That is incorrect, sir, Islam doesn’t teach violence without a cause.
Me: sir, I have asked you the explanation of just two verses. You couldn’t explain them. You said you didn’t know.
Muslim: But you are reading those verses wrong sir.
Me: Oh so you do know?
Muslim: It’s kinda hard to explain. I think you should ask these questions to a more knowledgeable person, like I said.
Me: Ok sir, thank you very much for your effort.

Bottom line: Muslims know the implication of the verses, but they are just reluctant to explain them. Obviously there is something about those verses that cant be reconciled with whatever peaceful intentions Muslims claim that Islam has. I commend those Muslims that want to upgrade Islam to the level of today’s value system of the West, to live and let live in freedom, without subjugating others to their rule. But their Islam is just not the Islam that can be found in the Islamic sources. I wish it was, but its not!


Radical Moderate said...

That verse is plagerized from the Jeresulum Talmud

Osama Abdallah said...


I invite you to debate me on "Does Islam promote terrorism?" or "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?"

I'll let you choose the title, and I'll gladly teach you and school you on Islam and demonstrate to you how you ridiculously misquote the Holy Quran's Verses and bring them out of context.

Please let me know if you accept and let me know when we can setup this debate should you accept.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Osama Abdallah said...

And I invite David Wood to debate me on Morality in Islam and the Bible. We have already agreed to debate this topic.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

minoria said...

So the question is if Islam promotes terrorism.First one has to define terrorism.That is the first thing both sides have to agree upon.

A Muslim would say Muslims only fight in the case of agression.He has to define what is "aggression".Is Buddhist missionary activity in Pakistan agression?

I think the most important debate to do is "Does Islam promote Human Rights?"

If we say good=human rights(and can one think of a better definition of Jesus' question:Why do you call me good?)

I would have said to Jesus:"I call you good because you teach us the Golden Rule{do to others as you would have them do to you),which is the basis of human rights."

But to the question if Islam promotes human rights(promotes what is good)I think the evidence is against it.Sharia Law is discriminatory,it's anti-good.

Or take Hinduism.In reality there are 2 Golden Rules:the passive and the active-positive one(Jesus said the second one).The Mahabharata has the Golden Rule in the passive sense:"Do NOT do to others what you don't want others to do to you."

But the Golden Rule has not had much of an influence on Hinduism.Some 20-30% are untouchables or without caste and have been discriminated for thousands of years.It's there but only once in the Mahabharata and like hidden away.

Bfoali said...

wow....the missionary tactics of Nabeel are really exopsed here. It realy is shocking how Nabeel plays with the audience.
Islam says if anyone wages war with the prophet you should kill them or exile them from the land. So here it says if anyone wages war '' what ever that is''. I mean come on, how low do you have to go, I dont think people are as dumb as nabeel is trying to point them out to be. Wage war? What can wage war mean? This really is a question of the ages !!!!!!! Not only that but what does verse 34 say??? It says EXCEPT for those who repent. So even if someone does WAGE WAR (BATTLE, MISCHEIF, FITNAH) if this person repents then.....common sense should play into here.
Shocking Nabeel, really shocking.................

minoria said...

But Bfoali,don't you find the punishments of 5:33 to be barbaric,crucifixion and cutting off hands and feet?That's ok for Alexander the Great(he crucified thousands),he didn't know better,he was a product of his time.

Also Mohammed enslaved prisoners,that's ok for Julius Ceaser to do,he enslaved 1 million Gauls,he was a product of his time.But Mohammed is supposed to be the greatest man who ever lived.Better than Confucius,Jesus,Buddha,Socrates.They wouldn't have ordered crucifixion,or enslavement of prisoners, "even if they hadn't repented".5:33-34 gives Mohamed a bad image even with "unless they repent."

Bfoali said...

Hi Minora,
No offense but I would rather wait for Nabeels response since I was, or since I attempted to make this post adress to him.

**Flowers** At minora

minoria said...

Hello Bfoali:

No offense taken.Take care.

Michelle Qureshi said...


The fact is that people were killed who did not wage war. A woman was killed for writing poetry against muhammad, for crying out loud! And this woman was breastfeeding her children when the Muslims came to kill her at Muhammad's command!

Did she wage war against Islam? Or was her death sentence unwarranted?

Michelle Qureshi said...

So what I'm trying to say is, though the Qur'an says "wage war", Muslims take this extremely loosely in order to justify what Muhammad did to people. This loose interpretation is why I say "whatever that means".

Bfoali said...

Well Nabeel im ASSUMING and I hate to assume (because it makes an Ass out of U and ME) but im assuming that you are refering to the incident about Asmaa bint Marwan. Well nabeel if you actually understood the story than maybe you would have finished the entire story. was she only writing poetry? I wish she was, but the fact was she was instigating violence against the Prophet. Her poerty was causing people to fight and kill the muslims, and to fight the prophet. Her poerty was causing violence.
Does this fit the criteria of Wage war? I dont know maybe it does not. Who knows.

minoria said...

Hmmm,about the story of the poetess assasinated by Mohammed.In a debate David Wood was told it was ok because she had broken the law.He replied if so then why was she assasinated in the middle of the night,in secret?

If she had broken the law she should have been taken to court in broad daylight.That makes sense.It was treachery,she was killed by deception.

Napoleon killed his enemies like that also.Ask any Haitian how he killed their greatest hero Toussaint L'Ouverture(literally All holy the opening).He was promised safety if he gave up,he did,but was later betrayed,sent to prison in France,where he died.He was probably the greatest genius who was 100% black.

I say 100% black because the greatest writer of any American nation in any language,and one if the greatest in the world was the Brazilian Machado de Assis(19th century).He was a greater writer than L'Ouverture was a general and administrator.He was mulatto,50% black,50% white.He didn't consider himself black,but mixed,and on top was ashamed of his black blood.

That's how it is in war.Broken promises,illegal action.But Napoleon was not a prophet,and Mohammed claimed to be the greatest of all.He should have been above approving and planning what happened to her.

Qasim Khan said...

If you are a coach and one of your players is on the bench, take that time to talk to them about their performance on the field. Pay for MBA Assignment This article is actually a fastidious one it helps new the web viewers, who are wishing in favor of blogging.