Saturday, February 27, 2010

Abdullah al-Andalusi Defends Terrorism, Tries to Cover-Up His Words, Condemns Muhammad, and Threatens Legal Jihad!

Our friend Abdullah al-Andalusi objects to my claim that he supports terrorism (or, at least, that he did so on a particular occasion). My reasoning has been simple:

(1) The Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack.
(2) Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre.
(3) Therefore, Abdullah supports terrorist attacks.

Of course, if anyone objects to (1) or (2), my conclusion will not follow. Most of us, however, hold that the Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack. Indeed, even the ultra-dhimmi Obama Administration now admits this. The only question, then, is whether Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre. Here we can read his own words, written shortly after the shooting. (Read his words carefully, for he has riddled the comments section with claims such as "I did not justify the Fort Hood Incident in the first place" and "I have clearly stated my opinions about the matter, that I DO NOT SUPPORT the actions of the Foot Hood massacre.")

Hi guys,

Firstly, no one says that Muslims should 'rise up to kills all americans' - READ THE FULLY QUOTE "Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place."

Which I believe in too - which means military targets are viable during war, but NO CIVILIAN TARGETS (and before you mention civilians on the Army base - they are just a sad accident of war- much like the 1000's of dead Iraqi and afghan civilians right?).

I'm sorry guys, but it is time for you to admit when you are wrong to condemn - soldiers go to fight in wars, and in that incident, soldiers got killed - big deal!

Yeah so it happened on american soil, so what, american pilots and drone controllers will track down the enemies of the USA to their very homes and shoot a missle through its living room, despite their family being there or not. I guess the motto of the story is, do unto others, as you would have done unto you". Perhaps your christians should look at this incident, as a 'judgement of God' upon the wicked american army.

p.s. One thing I have noticed, for people who profess to love everyone, most of you are full of hate (your emotions are hateful, whether or not your tongue issues peaceful platitudes - repent now to the only God 'the Father').

Notice what Abdullah believes: (i) Muslims should fight the American aggressors; (ii) military targets are viable during war; (iii) the civilians killed during the Fort Hood Massacre were "just a sad accident of war." His response to American soldiers being killed by a Muslim was, to quote him, "big deal."

This is obviously a defense of the Fort Hood Massacre. And since we regard the Fort Hood Massacre as a terrorist attack, we can only conclude that Abdullah supports what we regard as terrorism.

Nevertheless, Muslims in the West generally don't like being associated with terrorism, so Abdullah has tried to escape the obvious meaning of his words. He sent me the following paragraph to clarify his views for readers:

"The reason I am upset that you personally condemn the attack at Fort Hood, is for no other reason except that I am dismayed at the double standards I believe, have been displayed in the comments and mentallity of the individuals who write on this blog. If an individal, who attests to be Muslim, criminally kills civilians; you all condemn it (which we all would agree), but when a U.S. soldier kills civilians you do not highlight it here, or explain it as accidental. Furthermore, when a U.S marine kills an Iraqi or Afghan fighter, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES, you reply that this is all fair in war, or that they deserved it because they are enemies of the U.S. BUT when a Muslim soldier kills U.S. soldiers for the same reasons, irrespective of the location, you cry foul and call such attacks 'Terrorist attacks' (to which you include insurgent attacks on military assets in Iraq and Afganistan too). It would seem that the Muslim cannot fight except that it is called Terrorism, and the American/Christian cannot fight except that it is called a just war. In regards the Fort Hood incident, I do not condone it, since although in principle soldiers were the target, the individual who perpetrated the attacks did so from a position of trust (i.e. he gave his oath to help the U.S. army initially with sincerity), which is not allowed in Islam (I can explain why separately), furthermore, it is deeply regrettible that civilians got caught in the fire, and I condemn all deliberate killing of civilians. Therefore, according to my adopted Islamic opinions, I do not condone the attack from the Islamic perspective, but I do feel that yourselves are acting hypocritically according to your own criteria, for condemning it."

Here Abdullah tries to pretend that he was only pointing out an inconsistency on our part. But this simply will not do. Abdullah specifically said he believes that military targets are viable during war. Since he agrees with attacks on American military bases, he obviously wasn't merely discussing our inconsistency.

Both passages from Abdullah attempt to show that, since America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks against U.S. military targets (such as Fort Hood) are viable. But this exposes Abdullah's true views. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is neither an Afghani nor an Iraqi. American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because there are wars there. But Hasan is an American soldier. Thus, if Abdullah views Hasan's attack as justified by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he must believe that the United States is at war with Islam (for this is the only connection between Hasan and Afghanistan/Iraq). But if the United States is at war with Islam, then any Muslim is justified in attacking U.S. military bases right here in the United States.

Abdullah tries to get around this by saying that Hasan was wrong for pledging his allegiance to the U.S. and then fighting against the U.S. Thus, according to Abdullah's defense, it is wrong, immoral, and contrary to the teachings of Islam for a person to feign allegiance to a group in order to attack them. But here Abdullah can only defend himself by condemning Muhammad! Let's consider a few passages from the Hadith and Sira literature.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4037--Allah's Messenger said, "Who will kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Messenger?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b)." The Prophet said, "You may say it."

Ibn Ishaq, p. 367--The apostle said . . . "Who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?" Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. Abdu'l-Ashahal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "Do so if you can." So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfill it. The apostle said, "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try." He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."

As the story continues, we find Muslims (with the approval of Muhammad) pretending to be friends with Ka'b, until he trusts them. Once he trusts them, they brutally stab him to death. (They also chop off his head and bring it to Muhammad.)

What does this mean? It means that Muhammad allowed his followers to pretend to be friendly towards an enemy in an effort to win the enemy's trust, so that Muslims could successfully kill that enemy.

A similar event occurred during the Battle of the Trench. Nu'aym b. Mas'ud was from the tribes allied against Muhammad, but he converted to Islam. When he came to Muhammad, he was told: "You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit." Nu'aym then pretended to be loyal to the tribes allied against Muhammad, and he used their trust to turn them against one another.

None of this is surprising, of course. In the Hadith, we read:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3029--Allah's Messenger named: "War: Deceit."

Sahih al-Bukhari 3030--The Prophet said: "War is deceit."

In Sahih Muslim 6303, we read that Muslims are permitted to lie for several reasons: "in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Here Abdullah may object by pointing out that Hasan took an oath to protect America. But oaths are easily broken in Islam:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5518--Muhammad said: "By Allah, and if Allah will, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

What does all of this mean? The only way for Abdullah to pretend that Islam condemns the Fort Hood Massacre was to claim that Islam would not allow a Muslim to lie in order to infiltrate an enemy camp. But in making this claim, Abdullah has condemned Muhammad and the early Muslim community!

Abdullah's comments are simply indefensible. He obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre and specifically said that he supports attacks against military targets. Now he claims that he said no such thing, and this is clearly an attempt to deceive us. Perhaps this is why he's employing new tactics in his effort to avoid accountability. His latest tactic is to threaten "Legal Jihad," for he states, "David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on)."

So he's talking to his lawyer about my culpability! He's also threatened to blacklist me from future events with MDI (as if I'd ever give in to threats like this) if I don't back off. Well, Abdullah obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre, which means that I'm only guilty of telling the truth. And I suppose this blog post gives a good indication of my thoughts on his demand that I back off or risk blacklisting.

I'll conclude with some advice to Abdullah.

(1) Be careful of what you say, for you might regret it later.
(2) If you say something embarrassing, admit it, apologize, and move on.
(3) Don't try to reinterpret your own words in order to deceive people about your obvious meaning.
(4) When someone points out something you've said, don't threaten them.
(5) Don't attack people that you're supposedly trying to reconcile with.
(6) Don't use your own misunderstandings of Christian scripture to attack Christians to whom you should be apologizing.


Anonymous said...

"Furthermore, when a U.S marine kills an Iraqi or Afghan fighter, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES, you reply that this is all fair in war, or that they deserved it because they are enemies of the U.S. "

As a former US Marine, you need to check your facts. Afghan and Iraqi fighters don't fight from their own homes, they fight from the homes of others they have taken over, most likely after torturing and killing the previous inhabitants who logically dont want to part with everything of value they own (as what is often forced on them), nor want of having their property completely destroyed in resisting.

Unknown said...

Well David you have made some major errors. I shall be brief.

1. If Major Nidal sincerely gave his oath to the US Army, then he is bound by allegiance and occupies a position of trust. You are right though, he can terminate his oath for a 'better one', but you did not tell everyone HOW some is meant to change an Oath for a better one. If Major Nidal was a practicing Muslim, he would have to change his Oath, by OFFICIALLY LEAVING the US ARMY. ONLY THEN CAN HIS PREVIOUS OATH BE CONSIDERED 'INVALID'.

He is not allowed to renege that agreement and stay in the armed forces. This is different than, as the Hadith informs Muslims, a Head of State being permitted to send infiltrators into the enemy's armed forces, to gather intelligence or execute members of it's high command (as the CIA does - which you agree with according to Romans 13).

Muslims lack a Head of State of a Islamic Government at the moment, and thus, cannot use that Hadith to justify non-governmental level operations (much as Christian Just-War theory believes!).

2. The Legal counsel was mentioned to show that according to the Law of the Land (which under Romans 13 is binding on you to adhere to), you are in the wrong. If Legal proceedings were going to be pursued against you, they would have already been done.

But it only exposes your own bigotry, to allow your rants to be made public - to the detriment of your own credibility.

3. After taking counsel with other members of MDI, MDI will not call for blacklisting (a threat you like to wield alot yourself), - mainly because you will claim you were 'silenced for speaking the truth', so instead it will be better to expose you in the only appropriate arena to decide such matters- A Public Moderated Debate. After your last defeat at the 'Christianity and War' debate (Judging by the fact that all the Christians in the audience were firing questions at you instead of the Muslim speaker!)- you are rightly unable to answer the superior arguments and interpretations of Classical Christian Theologians, I can see why you are sqeemish about this the topic.

However, I'd like to see you debate again on the comparitive War ethics of Christianity and Islam. And we'll see who speaks the truth about the matters we have discussed.

Negeen Mayel said...

Abdullah is doing here, what most Muslims do. He was classifying all American soldiers as Christians, referencing to the wars as if they are wars against Islam. He asks you why you don’t post about Americans killing civilians in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Is he even being serious? When people are being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq it is not because the soldiers who are doing it are devout Christians and are on some sort of “holy” mission, where as the Fort Hood Attack was a direct correlation to the murders religious beliefs. Both of Abdullah's statements are all over the place and contradictory.As seen here:

"Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place."
”Which I believe in too - which means military targets are viable during war”

Then later states:

“In regards the Fort Hood incident, I do not condone it, since although in principle soldiers were the target, the individual who perpetrated the attacks did so from a position of trust (i.e. he gave his oath to help the U.S. army initially with sincerity)”

It seems here that Abduallah himself doesn’t even know whether to support the attack or condemn it. The confliction seems to come mostly on his own behalf of not even knowing what HE believes in and supports. As for the fact that he is thinking about pursuing legal complaints and is trying to ban David from debates with MDI, this is absolutely ridiculous. In life if you say something you are going to be called out on it especially if what you say is posted publicly. There is no reason to go around filing legal jihads just because someone calls you out on what you have stated. It shows a sense of entitlement, and it is an arrogant notion to act upon.

Unknown said...

@ Negeen,

General Rule: Military Assets are viable Targets during War.

Exception to General Rule: Not all Muslims are allowed to fight such targets - like known Muslims under covenant, and thus, in a position of trust (i.e living as citizens of the state at war with Muslim lands).

If you do not believe in General Rules and Exceptions to general Rules - then I have a whole bunch of Bible verses that are gonna get a whole lot more contradictory!

But the way - David and yourself, think I just invented the 'Position of Trust' prohibition to 'cover myself' - but I haven't, I follow the same opinions mentioned here:

This is the problem I am talking about, Christians such as yourselves, think that I, a heathen in your eyes, am from the Devil, and must always be lying and meaning the worst possible meaning in my words. But you are mistaken, and if you cannot see my humanity, you will have made yourselves less human by doing so.

Radical Moderate said...

WOW, what to say to thiss. First Ireanaues thank you for your service and I remind you that there is no such thing as a FORMER MARINE :)

Abdullah might I suggest you pick up a copy of the US Army Field Manual, or better yet read Gen Patraius definitive work on counter insurgency. You can find both online.

Michelle Qureshi said...


Call me a softy, but I think you are generally treated more harshly on this site than you ought to be.

This time, however, you've shot himself in the foot and you deserve to be called out.

Abdullah, you clearly contradicted yourself. First you condoned the attack (and I applauded you for your honesty, deplorable though your stance was) and then you condemned the attack. Either you changed your mind, or you were trying to save face. If you had changed your mind, you would have said so. You didn't say so. Clearly, you're trying to save face. We all know this. I suggest you take it like a man before you dig yourself a deeper hole.

Question for you: in the comments section (this page) you said to David: "you did not tell everyone HOW some(one) is meant to change an Oath for a better one" and you go on to give a method for expiating an oath. Where do you get this method from, ahadith or the Qur'an? I'm not saying you made it up, I just want your reasoning.

Frankly, I never saw Muhammad qualify his statement "War is deceit" with anything like "but you should still be honest to a certain degree", yet this is what you're implying. Again, please show us how you arrived at this conclusion from the Qur'an or ahadith.


Negeen Mayel said...

@ Abdullah,
I do not at all see you as a heathen, a devil, a habitual liar or less of a human. As a Christian and especially as one who has recieved grace and has come out of Islam I am commanded to care about your eternal salvation, defend my faith and to also protect my fellow believers in Christ. So if that means I write comments that sound "harsh"- but point out reality then so be it. Know that it is not because I think of you as lesser in being in anyway.

Nakdimon said...

Abdullah, I find it quite offensive for Muslims to address our God as “the Father” and act as if Allah is the same god as the God of the Bible. The audacity and the despicable deceptive behavior of Muslims needs to be addressed here. Allah is NOT “the Father”! Stop appealing to our language to and contradict your own “holy” scriptures, because NONE OF YOU address your god as “Father” EVER! You only do so in our presence to appeal to us. In Judaism, the God of Abraham is a Father, in Christianity the God of Abraham is a Father, in Islam Allah denies in the strongest of terms that he is a father to ANYONE. Because Allah’s gross ignorance of what we mean when we call our God “Father”. Allah immediately thinks about procreation through sexual intercourse, which demonstrates his lack of knowledge of what we believe. So he can claim all he wants about being “wise” and “knower of things” but he exposed his ignorance of our position. And he is correct. He is not our Father because he is not our God. [b]STOP THE LIE AND ACT AS IF OUR FATHER IS ALLAH! HE IS NOT![/b]

And YES, David’s assessment is entirely correct. You did condone and tried to justify the Fort Hood attack. If not, then please tell us where you repudiated it in the post David put up.

Nakdimon said...

[b]Well, Abdullah obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre, which means that I'm only guilty of telling the truth.[/b]

David you said it well.

Maybe this will help Muslims assess things better. In the short time that I have been dealing with Muslims I have noticed a pattern, namely, that whenever you tell the Muslim the truth and he doesn’t like it, he accuses you of lying.
I just want to tell Muslims what lying really is:

Lying is: NOT telling the truth!
Lying is NOT: telling something you don’t like!

Nakdimon said...

[b]Don't use your own misunderstandings of Christian scripture to attack Christians [/b]

Well if he is to emulate Muhammad, then you can't accuse him of un-Islamic behavior.

I'm just saying... This is exactly what Muhammad and Allah are doing. They misrepresent what others believe, then attack that misrepresentation and actually think they refute stuff.

Nakdimon said...

1. If Major Nidal sincerely gave his oath to the US Army, then he is bound by allegiance and occupies a position of trust. You are right though, he can terminate his oath for a 'better one', but you did not tell everyone HOW some is meant to change an Oath for a better one. If Major Nidal was a practicing Muslim, he would have to change his Oath, by OFFICIALLY LEAVING the US ARMY. ONLY THEN CAN HIS PREVIOUS OATH BE CONSIDERED 'INVALID'.

Didn’t you see the Hadith of Muhammad expiating his oath? Where does it say “if I insincerely make an oath, I can expiate it”? Or should we ask any Muslim when making an oath if he is sincere or not? But how do we know if he answers that he is sincere if the concept of Taqiyyah is rampant in Islam? Don’t you see the indefensibility of your position? Do you really NOT see this?

Exception to General Rule: Not all Muslims are allowed to fight such targets - like known Muslims under covenant, and thus, in a position of trust (i.e living as citizens of the state at war with Muslim lands).

Oh you mean like Huddaybiyah? Where Muhammad signed a treaty for peace for 10 years and broke that oath, that position of trust, within two years by attacking Mecca by surprise at night?

This is the problem I am talking about, Christians such as yourselves, think that I, a heathen in your eyes, am from the Devil, and must always be lying and meaning the worst possible meaning in my words.

Please show us where Christian doctrine gives you this idea that we think that you, as a heathen, are from the devil and therefore are always lying?

On the contrary it is Islamic teachings that tell you not to trust Kufaar. Again, the muslim spins his own doctrines, his own faults on another.

Sepher Shalom said...

Abdullah said: "General Rule: Military Assets are viable Targets during War."

Abdullah, does this mean you are publicly going on record as saying Islam has declared war on the USA?

Fernando said...

Dear Abdullah...

I see thate you are in some sort off pain... I understand whate you're feeling: your human side is strugling withe the more painfull dimention off being a muslim believer... I guess you're understanding thate, as someone saide, being human and beinh a muslim is not easely equilibrated...

as I saide before: my prayers are withe you and your family...

Unknown said...

Imam Shafi'i said: "If a group of Muslims enter Dar ul Harb (Land at War with Muslims), and the enemy from them is secure (i.e. they have covenant) until they leave or are betrayed, and if the enemy take into captivity any children or women, although I do not like the betrayal of the enemy, it is not allowed to betray them. The Muslims MUST GO OUT and THEN RETURN TO FIGHT and release them."

Imam Shafi'i said: "If the enemy captures a Muslim and imprisons him, and after that they release him and give him security, and they allow him to live among them, the covenant they give to him is a covenant from him to them (i.e. it is binding on him), it is not allowed for him to assassinate them or betray them, and we do not know ANY SCHOLAR that has mentioned otherwise." [Kitab ul Umm vol.4 p292]

Imam Nawawi (Shafi'i scholar) said: "If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, by a covenant, and he borrows money from them or he steals and then goes back to Dar ul Islam, he must return it, because he has no right to take their wealth because of the covenant." [Ar Rawadha Nadia v.10 p.291]

Ibn Hamman (hanbali) said: "If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, as a businessman, or student, it is not allowed for him to touch their life or wealth, because by the covenant he is guarantor that he will never touch them, if he does that, it becomes ghadr, and ghadr is haram by consensus agreement." [Al Tahrir vol 6 p 17]

P.S - US Military bomb 'insurgent mosques' by Airstrike, and raid houses to find insurgents. I think you have just made a serious error my friend.

Radical Moderate said...

Part 1
First the good, thank you for your thoughts and your candid input. It is refreshing to see such honesty coming from a Muslim, and with respect to my fellow bloggers, I feel that Abdullah has expressed some valid points, at least from the Muslim point of view.
You expressed that Muslims are to fight the “Aggressor” and this is something you believe. That “Muslims” are not to attack “CIVILIAN TARGETS” and that the “Civilians on the army base” were “Just a sad accident of war” just like “the 1000’s of dead Iraqi and Afghan civilians”. That we are “wrong to condemn” those that kill our soldiers because they “go to fight in wars” and if they get killed in the process “BIG DEAL!”
You also made the comparison to what happened at Fort Hood to when American pilots fire missiles into the homes of its enemies “despite their family being there or not” and also stated that we should look at this as a “judgment of God upon the wicked American army”
All of these I find to be fair statements from the Muslim world view. And this is the problem. I don’t know what part of the world you hail from. I don’t know what Islamic KRAPtakistan you or your family FLED. That’s right FLED, to come to Great Brittan for a better life. But whatever country you came from you should as a citizen of “Her Majesties Crown” have no loyalties, oaths or obligations. If you were naturalized into Great Brittan I’m sure you took an oath to the crown, if you obtained your citizenship from birth then you loyalty to the Crown is implied

Radical Moderate said...

Part 2
The same is for the Citizens of my great country the United States of America. If Muslims or anyone for that matter immigrates here and become citizens, they take an OATH. The first part of this oath is stated below.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; “
If the Muslim or anyone else becomes a citizen by birth then the Oath is IMPLIED.

Now we in the US do not view our soldiers as, Christian, Jews, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc… We do not have an Iraqi brigade, or an Afghan Division there is no Dutch or German Corp. They are all citizens. So when one of these citizen soldiers is killed in the service of thier oath it is a BIG DEAL. We do not identify with those who serve the “foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty”, whom have caused the death of our fellow citizens.

In WW2 there were Japanese who served with distinction even though their families were interned. (Read about the BUDA HEADS, the most decorated unit in US military history) There were German Americans, Italian Americans, Even those in Los Cosanostra pitched in during the Sicily Campaign.

Can the same be said of US’s or even Great Brittan’s Muslim population after the attacks of 9-11 in the US and the Attacks on 7-7 in Great Brittan?

Now there may be some Muslims who serve with distinction in the US or Great Brittan’s military. However those are few and far between. Those Muslim that do their duty to that Nation of their birth or citizens by naturalization, are more often than not condemned and ostracized by their own Muslim community and even families.

We do not condemn the attacks of 9-11, 7-7, Fort Hood, or even when US soldiers are killed in country because Muslims are doing the killing or because Civilians are targeted. We condemn them because they are attacks on OUR NATION and more importantly they are attacks on the citizens of our countries.

In contrast you Muslims living in the west view the military actions of your adoptive nations not as defending the freedoms that they enjoy but as attacks on ISLAM, regardless of the Nationality of the Muslim.

So thank you for clarifying the western Muslims position. Thank you for stating why Muslims living in the west CAN NOT BE TRUSTED with CITIZENSHIP.
More to come on the second part of your response.

Radical Moderate said...

Abdullah said...
"If Major Nidal sincerely gave his oath to the US Army, then he is bound by allegiance and occupies a position of trust. You are right though, he can terminate his oath for a 'better one', but you did not tell everyone HOW some is meant to change an Oath for a better one. If Major Nidal was a practicing Muslim, he would have to change his Oath, by OFFICIALLY LEAVING the US ARMY. ONLY THEN CAN HIS PREVIOUS OATH BE CONSIDERED 'INVALID'."

First Abdullah what do you mean by " If Major Nidal sincerely gave his oath"

How do you not "SINCERELY" give a oath. Are you saying that Muslims can cross there fingers, or toes and there by not be sincere. Or just say "yes I took the oath by I wasn't sincere when I did it so there for I can violate it." ?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Secondly even if he would of done everything that you said and then attacked the US army base, WE WOULD STILL CONDEMN IT. Because it is a attack on the US government and its citizens.

As much as I love reading this train wreck. You really just need to SHUT UP. Your trying to explain away your position but your MAKING IT WORSE.

I guess what my dad said is true, "A man will always tell you his intentions...All you have to do is listen."

Michelle Qureshi said...

So what you're telling me is Muhammad left his statement unqualified, and you're relying on Imam Shafi instead of ahadith and the Qur'an?

Sepher Shalom said...

This issue of "Covenant of Security" is an interesting one to be brought up.

As I'm sure Abdullah is well aware, Omar Bakri Muhammad said that the Covenant of Security had ended in Britian in 2005. Here is an article related to this issue, and to the dynamics of this "covenant" and how it has played out internally in the UK.

Here is a quote from the article:

"But in January 2005, Mr. Mohammed determined that the covenant of security had ended for British Muslims because of post-September 11, 2001, anti-terrorist legislation that meant "the whole of Britain has become Dar ul-Harb," or territory open for Muslim conquest. Therefore, in a reference to unbelievers, "the kuffar has no sanctity for their own life or property."

Sounds like political extortion to me. Whenever a policy that Muslim leaders don't like is enacted, they can simple threaten to declare the "covenant" to be violated unless the legislation is removed.

While I'm sure Abdullah can make a case for why he disagrees about the covenant having been violated (at least I hope he disagrees), that is not my point at all. My point is, all it takes to effectively remove this so-called covenant is for a popular Muslim leader to declare it has been violated. Thankfully, it doesn't seem Omar Bakri Muhammad had quite enough popular support amongst Britain's Muslims to pull this off, but eventually someone who does have enough popularity could (and I believe will) come along.

This is little more than demagoguery and might-makes-right. Any "scholar" who can make himself popular enough with the Muslim community is able to use Islam as a weapon for their particular aims.

Hey, become an Islamic Sheikh and you too can give marching orders to your own band of Jihadis.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I am also surprised that Abdullah is turning to imam's and scholars for his sources. When we utilize similar sources to question the credibility of Islam we are told that these are only human sources.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Does Dar ul Harb (hope I spelled this right otherwise Abdullah will just insult me again) refer to all non-Muslims in general or only nations or factions who are literary at war with Islam?

Another thing. I was personally present at Speakers Corner when Abdullah and his co-workers ran around with Islamic flags propagating their religion, Jihad and Islam and world politic.

I witnessed personally and talk to Iraqi Muslims who were wildly upset with and objected to Abdullah and others along with him over their view of the presence of the alien forces on Iraqi ground. These Iraqi Muslims considered the Americans not as oppresive occupiers but as their saviours, while they considered the people who held to the view of Abdullah as the problem of Iraq and those who continue the terror. This is quite the opposite picture portrayed by the Muslims on these blogs.

Jon said...

I think if you were to create a cartoon depicting the most absurd Stalinist acolytes you couldn't do a whole lot better the the blog members and other terrorist apologists you find at Answering Muslims. They are quite indignant at Saddam Hussein and his crimes. The fact that he filled mass graves with Kurds. But how often do you hear them complain about the 10's of thousands of Kurds slaughtered in southwestern Turkey with U.S. weaponry? They've never heard of it.

Are they upset about the mass graves filled in Panama by U.S. soldiers? They've probably never heard of it.

How about Vietnam. They know exactly how many Americans died I'm sure. 58,000. How many died throughout Indochina at the hands of Americans? They don't know and don't care. The best estimates are around 4 million, but that could be off by millions. We don't count our victims. What was the Vietnamese crime? Well, they were expected to vote the wrong way in a free election. For that chemical weapons were dumped on them at a rate that makes Saddam's usage of chemical weapons look small. But it's all irrelevant. Crimes are only crimes if they're done by official enemies. Otherwise it's called freedom fighting.

They're unhappy about the Fort Hood "massacre." An attack on a military installation that was actively deploying troops into a region that has suffered the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands. They're horrified at the death of 13 people, almost all active military personnel. If only 13 Iraqi's died in any given day due to U.S. military intervention that would be a good day for Iraq. But their deaths don't matter.

A year ago Israel invaded Palestinian territory with no credible pretext whatsoever. They massacred 1400 people, almost all civilians. They destroyed their food producing capacity. Took out a flour mill. Bull dozed chicken coups. I don't hear any complaining here about it. But they're quite upset about Fort Hood. That's terrorism.

What we have here is an attitude that finds it's closest parallel in Soviet Russia. The rightness and wrongness of actions was dictated not by actual behavior but by support for your country. Nothing was worse than being anti-Soviet. And here there is nothing worse than being anti-American. You must support American violence regardless of the scale. All retaliatory violence is outrageous. Actually I understand that the Nazi archives are filled with the same kind of rhetoric.

Radical Moderate said...

Abdullah said...

" If Major Nidal was a practicing Muslim"

Again the IF, what do you mean by IF he was a practicing muslims.

The man went to the Masjid every Friday, he lead the Friday prayers when the IMAM was out of town, he fasted on Ramadan, he invited others to the Masjid, he gave a powerpoint presentation on Islam and JIHAD. Everyone, friends and enemies all said he was a practicing muslims?

So on what basis do you use the word IF in reference to Maj. Nadel?

Royal Son said...

"They're unhappy about the Fort Hood "massacre." An attack on a military installation that was actively deploying troops into a region that has suffered the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands."

Let me get you right Jon. Are you saying that the Fort Hood Massacre was warranted? Do you believe that people who have sworn duty to the US military and have pledged allegiance to the United States government should be able to open fire on their comrades?

Fernando said...

Jon is back... take care ladys and gentlemant: the personification off bias comments agains Israel is back...

Michelle Qureshi said...


America is a political entity, not a group of Christian warriors. If America were going off of Jesus' teachings, no one would be killed.

Muslim terrorists are just that, the embodiment of Islam. They are going off of Muhammad's teachings, and people are being killed by Islam.

There's the difference. If you don't integrate this simple fact into your knowledge base, your opinion will continue to be impotent.


Jon said...

Let me get you right Jon. Are you saying that the Fort Hood Massacre was warranted? Do you believe that people who have sworn duty to the US military and have pledged allegiance to the United States government should be able to open fire on their comrades?

I'm saying nothing of the sort. It's a tragedy. But there's two things to note. First it's extremely small in scale relative to the tragedies inflicted on Muslims daily. And secondly it was the predicted consequence of the U.S. invasions, which were exactly what OBL hoped we would do. Remember, OBL was not popular amongst Muslims prior to the United States absurd reaction to 9/11. Today he's a hero. Our intelligence agencies predicted radical spikes in terror if we invaded. The fact is not only are our men and women in uniform in danger, but U.S. civilians are likewise in far graver danger of terror as a consequence of our invasions. This puts the lie to the claim that the invasions came about to oppose the threat of terror. They were expected to enhance terror, and that's exactly what they did. But other goals were apparently more important.

If you really cared about those that died at Ft. Hood you would be outraged at the actions that were undertaken with the full knowledge that it would produce responses exactly like what we saw at Ft. Hood.

Jon said...

Isn't it strange, Nabeel Qureshi, that the only Muslim terrorists you notice are the ones that happen to be on the U.S. enemies list. They are the ones that happen to live in countries where the U.S. wants to get a firmer grip on the natural resources. Take southeastern Turkey. A huge atrocity. Every imaginable torture and brutality was committed against the Kurds by the Muslims there. Untold numbers killed. Millions driven from their homes. Towns crushed. The Turkish military was never called Muslim terrorists. Why is that? Wasn't what they did terrorism?

Take Indonesia. It's the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Suharto comes to power and exterminates hundreds of thousands, if not more. He invades East Timor and slaughters 1/3 of the population. Why aren't they Muslim terrorists? Why aren't they demonized and fear mongered? Why don't you point out how Suharto is simply following the dictates of Muhammed? You don't demonize him and it just so happens that Suharto and Turkey were playing along with U.S. economic interests and so they happened to be on the "good guy" list as far as our government is concerned. You don't talk about their atrocities.

I agree that if we followed Christ's teachings we'd be much better off. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Take a look at the beam in your won eye before talking about the speck in your neighbors eye. So why don't you forget about the Ft. Hood shooter, an almost imperceptibly tiny tragedy as compared to the enormous death reigned down on the Muslim world over the last 50 years, and take a look at your own crimes and stop engaging in them. When you've removed that beam, then at that point perhaps it makes sense to talk about the crimes of others.

Radical Moderate said...

Nabeel, you saved me the time and effort in a response. Thank you

David Wood said...

I'm really finding it difficult to understand Jon's reasoning. It seems a person can't get upset over brutal murders without first systematically going through the entire world and condemning each and every brutal murder that has ever happened.

I would hate to see Jon's response to my words if (may it never be) my mother were killed. I imagine the dialogue would go something like this:

DAVID: Guys, I'm really upset. My mother was just brutally murdered by a bandit.
JON: Hypocrite! I didn't see you complaining when a mother was brutally murdered by a bandit in New Zealand last year! Oh, but now you moan and wail for your own mother. Sickening!
DAVID: I didn't even know about the mother who was murdered in New Zealand.
JON: And you didn't even bother to find out! Shows how much you care about other people. Oh, but when your own mother gets killed, suddenly it's a bad thing. Well boo, hoo, hoo. I can't stand you hypocrites.

This got old way too fast, Jon. Go somewhere else and be illogical.

Radical Moderate said...

David wood even better yet, I was going to try to explain how you have to berry bodies after a battle and then latter grave services comes in and digs them up for identification etc... But that would of went way over his head.

Jon go sell crazy someplace else we are all booked up here.

Radical Moderate said...

What about the mass graves after the Tsunami in Indonesia, what about the mass graves after the Earth Quake in Hati, I guess the Jews and the US are to blame for that too. Why arent you or anyone else complaining about those mass graves

Anthony Rogers said...

In spite of Nabeel supplying Jon with a valuable distinction (Church/State), he turns around and tells Nabeel: "...why don't you forget about the Ft. Hood shooter, an almost imperceptibly tiny tragedy as compared to the enormous death reigned down on the Muslim world over the last 50 years, and take a look at your own crimes and stop engaging in them. When you've removed that beam, then at that point perhaps it makes sense to talk about the crimes of others."

Now that just serves to remind us that we are sometimes wrong about people even when we think we have a good impression of them. Many of us have never had the pleasure of meeting Nabeel face to face, but how many of us really knew or would have thought, without Jon the Apostates invaluable intell, that Nabeel was responsible for the death that has been reigned down on the followers of the religion of peace for the past 50 years? Did anyone else suspect Nabeel for such crimes against humanity? I didn't even know he was that old.

Although I appreciate being duly informed on this most important matter, for I now know to keep Nabeel at a safe distance from my family, I can't say I will be sorry to see Jon go. He is a most misleading and confusing fellow himself. I mean, although I have never met Jon face to face, I never would have guessed, given his denial of God, which necessarily entails a denial that man was made in God's image (and therefore has inherent dignity and is worthy of respect), that he would act as if he has any reason to care what one set of animals, churned out by a mindless and uncaring process, does to another set of animals. I also wouldn't expect him to preach long winded sermons, as he does, calling on people to repent of their crimes and to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Have you ever seen such a thing? Would you have ever expected it?

Jon blurs the lines for me between church and blog. Its like I leave church where my pastor tells me to turn from my sins and follow Christ, and then I come here and Jon the Atheist is telling me to repent and follow Christ. What is the world coming to when you can't even expect atheists to stop being hypocrites and live up to the full implications of their atheism?

Anthony Rogers said...

I hope no one minds if I say one more thing on Jon's atheism here, but I've had a little bit of a history with Jon and I know how much he likes when I provide inspirational quotes from atheistic luminaries. It gives him goose-bumps.

"After Darwin, we can no longer think of ourselves as occupying a special place in creation – instead, we must realize that we are products of the same evolutionary forces, working blindly and without purpose, that shaped the rest of the animal kingdom. And this, it is commonly said, has deep philosophical significance….Darwinism undermines both the idea that man is made in the image of God and the idea that man is a uniquely rational being. Furthermore, if Darwinism is correct, it is unlikely that any other support for the idea of human dignity will be found. The idea of human dignity turns out, therefore, to be the moral effluvium of a discredited metaphysics." (James Rachels, Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 1, 5)

Anthony Rogers said...

And by the way, since man and animal are on a continuum, why doesn't Jon complain about all the (non-human) animals that have been killed in the wars he mentions? Surely there were some that went the way of all the earth in the wake of the destruction.

I wonder if Jon knows how many (non-human) animals were killed? I wonder if he has cared enough to try and find out? I don't see him complaining about it, so he must not care. Jon, take the beam from your eye and repent of the crimes for which you are guilty.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

I also wonder if Jon has even thought about how billions of nohuman animals were saved from being murdered for food by the millions of muslins that were massacred by Nabeel over the last 50 years.

The mind boggels


Radical Moderate said...

Looks like Abdullah took my advice only to be replaced by JON lol

Michelle Qureshi said...


I am upset to hear of these tragedies around the world. I will look into them and pray for the anguished.

I think you should try to understand, however, that people cannot know everything that's happening in the world. We get information through the news and other media and that's something we can't control. Stuff that's closer to home obviously has a greater impact on us.

I will pray for the world, but I'll focus on what's closer to home. I guarantee, that's the way the whole world works. If you're going to be consistent, hold it against everyone, not just American Christians.


Jeff said...

I think the Ft. Hood killing was in some ways similar to a terrorist attack--

--It had no clear immediate military motive;

--It had that kind of cold blooded fanaticism that is often seen in terrorist killings;

--It had the 'out of the blue' character, the suddenness usually meant to bring fear and break the enemy's will that terror attacks usually strive for...

But it lacks one characteristic of a terrorist attack: it was directed toward soldiers, not toward civilians.

I think it's very important not to lose sight of this. Non-terrorist attacks can ALSO be evil. But the particular evil of terrorism lies in its targeting civilians directly and purposefully.

I don't think if we had recruited a Nazi soldier to blow up a German barracks during World War Two, it would have constituted "terrorism". It would have been a perfectly acceptable military tactic.

The evil of the Fort Hood attack does not lie in the MEANS but rather in the END. ANY attacks on our soldiers, here in the US or abroad are wrong because our army's cause is just.

But if you imagine that we were fighting an UNJUST war, an attack on soldiers in the US would be perfectly licit.

Jeff said...

Don't these quotations from Imam Shafii and others apply to Muslim VISITORS? They speak of Muslims "going in" to Dar al Harb.

I think the model behind all that scholarship is the assumption that Muslims live in Dar al Islam and they may visit or temporarily reside in Dar al Harb.

How to adapt that teaching when Muslims are actually citizens of a non-Muslim country is the question.

Kirk said...

Nabeel put it plain.

The overlying issue is the core fundamental beliefs followed.

Anyone can make claims of allegiance to a cause, religion, etc. To be fair, we can be open to the fact that individuals are an "extreme" faction, cult or offshoot incorrectly portraying the fundamental beliefs, and in doing so misrepresenting the religion and the religions followers.

Stereotypes occur, prejudices arise, yadda yadda...

The proof is in the pudding...

Ultimately, Islam allows for acts of terrorism for the sake of "progressing" its reign.

More like digression.

You can argue in support of Nidal all you want, and use other tragedies to show persons on here are biased. Most here are. And rightfully so. Trying to compare Christian core beliefs and Islamic beliefs, night and day, black and white. Except those are even too related. More like black and fish... or day and pb & j...

And I gladly say so, of myself. I am bias against any belief system that condones the killing of persons, allowing its follower to pass this judgment, and a god who is appeased by the blood of men, whether in Iraq or Indonesia... Or Texas.

Let me offer a contrast. My God says He wishes that none would perish, Love thy neighbor, even thy Enemies. He desired to shed His own blood in exchange for the blood of men. This is good news.

Nazam said...

Hello Jeff,

I am interested to know your rational arguments for the Trinity to Muslims?

Thank you.

Anonymous said...


Have you reconsidered any of your opinions since your debate with Dinesh D'Souza? Just curious. I think he gave you some perspectives that would warrant further consideration.

Your tactic of saying we shouldn't address a problem because there are equally large problems elsewhere that remain unaddressed is as old as the bible (John 12:3-8). This is what people do in order to score talking points, but who don't want anyone actually achieving results.

Anonymous said...


I am wondering if you were sincere in asking your question about a rational definition of the Most Holy Trinity. The reason I say this is because it presupposes that God is so small that he would be understood completely by human intellect. His ways are so far above ours that to expect such knowledge before one can believe is not reasonable. If you had such a complete explanation, than you would be believing in something manmade, and not in God. It's a bit of a contradiction. It's like asking a simple caveman for a rational explanation for nuclear fission. The caveman could come to believe it's true by virtue of the heat coming from the sun... but if he ever had a rational explanation for it, he would no longer be a simple caveman, he would be something that more closely resembles a nuclear physicist. So too, we would have to become like God to understand God at the level of detail you are most likely expecting.

As Christians, we know the Trinity to be true by what God has revealed to us. If someone were to say, "Give me a rational argument of HOW God created the heavens and earth?" There is no rational explanation that fits with the modern scientific understanding of Muslims, Jews or Christians.... yet we as Muslims, Jews, and Christians know it to be true, by revelation from God. What is not rational to the scientific mind is rational to the Christian mind because we have experiences with miracles that fall outside the realm of science, and their benefits are derived from our belief in God.

An analogy for the Trinity that might give you a better understanding is this. Think of God the Father as the Sun up in the sky, think of the light that shines forth from it as the Word manifest in Jesus Christ, and think of the warmth you feel as the Holy Spirit. All three are distinct, yet they are indivisibly one just as the Trinity is one yet it has three distinct persons. In Jesus Christ, God humiliated himself by taking on human flesh, making himself small enough that we might know the face God in a more intimate way than was revealed before. Even if you disregard this post, I will leave you with one rational argument that should govern every religion. If your God can be bounded by the human intellect, than what you believe in is not God.

Anthony Rogers said...


You might be thinking that the "Jon" here is "John Loftus". If that is what you are thinking, they are actually two different animals.

Nazam said...

I wasn't presupposing anything, Jeff seems like a cool person.

I wanted to know what is it that I have not understood about the concept that the other Muslims that Jeff have been speaking? I am not asking to comprehend the Trinity but merely to understand the concept and there's a different between understanding an concept and being able comprehend an concept. Nobody is not asking to comprehend God but merely to understand the concept of God.

Jeff said...


I clicked on your name and discovered an empty blog called "Shabir Ally's Responses"... but no way to reach you.

I'm not sure a thread on terrorism should be taken up by me and you discussing the Trinity! But I'm happy to talk about it with you anytime. My email is . If you are Shabir Ally, then we have already had a short but pleasant exchange.

Let me warn you in any case: My aim in such conversations is not to prove the Trinity. It's merely to help Muslims understand what we MEAN by the Trinity...and why a reasonable person could believe as we do without seeing any kind of manifest contradiction.

I'll be sparing with my internet use until after Easter, but I do check my email from time to time.

God bless!

Nazam said...


Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I've just sent you a short email but you can also message me on youtube via my channel Nazam44.

The address to Shabir Ally's blog is

It an unofficial blog of his but contains NEW articles written by him, including reviews of his last debate with James White in London and William Craig in Canada.


Nazam said...


Women in Marriage: In the Quran and the Bible

Hosted by MDI: Friday March 5, 2010, 18:30-20:30pm

Venue: WestBourne Park Baptist Church, Porchester Road, London, W2 5DX, UK

Nearest Tube Station: Royal Oak


Dr Tabassum Hussain - MDI Visiting speaker from Canada, .

Beth Grove - Member of CCi (Christians Confronting Islam), public speaker and experienced apologist in Evangelical ministries.

Session to be co-moderated by Abdullah Andalusi and co-moderator from

Nazam said...

The Learner has ask me if there's any chance his comments/question to Negeen which he sent this past Sunday will be posted on the blog?

BTW, I'm not the Learner in case anybody was wondering.

David Wood said...


We're not going to have a new-convert-bashing festival every time Negeen decides to post a comment on a specific topic.

minoria said...

Hello Abdullah:

I am glad you are participating.I have read the material you posted.Maybe you agree with me on this or not:


If it were a war between GERMANY and FRANCE,where both sides follow conventional rules THEN an attack in FRANCE on a military base by a German sympathizer would be valid.


They do NOT follow the rules of conventional warfare.They HELPED Osama ben Laden in his terrorist attacks,he had training camps there,they helped him to escape.


If the TALIBAN were NOT terrorists then yes,Nidal could justify his attack.But he was HELPING an evil cause.


I believe you hold Al-Qaida,Hamas,Hizbulla,the Taliban are ANTI-ISLAM,contrary to the religion,they have highjacked it,correct?

So even if you are against US participation in Irak/Afghanistan(Negeen's homeland) AT MOST your position would be one of NEUTRALITY(which implies being against the Taliban for being anti-Islam).Would that be your position then,not support but neutrality?

minoria said...

I have read with interest Nazam's news of a new debate in London regarding Woman in marriage in islam and Christianity.anyone who has seen the Tabassum-Mary Jo debate will see that Mary Jo gave an outline of it in her debate.I hope the new debate will be filmedI checked MDI(Muslim Debate Initiative)'s website.
To my surprise they still haven't posted the Tabassum-Mary Jo debate again.Hope they do soon.