Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Sad, Sad, Sad

(NOTE: PLEASE READ THE UPDATES AT THE END OF THIS POST, AS NOT ALL OF MDI WAS INVOLVED IN THESE EVENTS.)

The Muslim Debate Initiative has posted their version of Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum. If you'd like a good introduction to Muslim ethics, I invite you to watch the intro. Notice that when we post debates, we don't attempt to bias people against speakers, even if we disagree with those speakers. Yet when MDI posts a debate, they find it necessary to spend several minutes attempting to discredit the opposition. MDI posts scenes of Mary Jo in a discussion with me, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Gellar, in an obvious attempt to focus Muslims' dislike for Spencer and me onto Mary Jo. The intent is to get Muslims so angry at Mary Jo that they will not listen to her arguments. But if you don't want people listening to her arguments, why even have the debates? Moreover, if MDI is satisfied with the debate as it stands, why try to bias people from the start? This is simply pathetic. MDI claims that they respect women, when they clearly show no respect for Mary Jo. I think I speak for several of us when I say that I'm done with the Muslim Debate Initiative.



On a different note, I can't imagine why they would attack Mary Jo for being on a program which claims that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy. Could she be thinking of passages like these:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Muhammad said: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 4068—The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”

How dare this lying infidel Mary Jo suggest that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy! (For a fuller discussion of apostasy, click here.)

Anyone care to guess Mary Jo's impression of Muslims? The first time she was around a large group of Muslims, she was physically assaulted by three of them. (Note: The virtually universal Muslim response to these assaults was: "She deserved it, since she was with David and Nabeel.") Now Muslims post her debate, and they try to discredit her before the debate even starts. And Muslims wonder why Westerners are getting suspicious!

*****UPDATE***** I hear from Roger (Mary Jo's husband) that MDI UK denies responsibility for the video. If this is correct, then it seems that the Muslims from the Islamic center in Canada (friends of Tabasum?) have produced the video. Hopefully, we'll have this cleared up soon.

*****2ND UPDATE***** The video has been removed. I assume it will be reposted without the pre-debate attacks. Everything I know is second-hand, but it seems that most of the members of MDI were not aware of the attacks against Mary Jo and did not approve of the content. Based on the little information I have, the attacks appear to have come from Tabasum, her husband, and the Canadian Muslims, and have little or nothing to do with UK or US members of MDI.

53 comments:

Adam said...

Salaam to all Kaaba Worshipers of MDI (muslim debate initiative)

You are the fruits of a True prophet muhamMAD of cult of Kaaba

Adam

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Well MBI includes members who on previous occasions have resorted to death threats and have suppressed online debates by muting the Christian speaker. That is enough for me.

Simply said: for MBI to turn a respectful debate into such an aggressive tool against the Christian speaker, or to permit this to be viewed on their website does not surprise me at all, and it's ashame that an American Islamic organisation that presented itself respectfully co-operates with groups that allow members to resort to such methods.

Confident Christianity said...

Sadat Anwar (husband of Tabasum Hussain) just claimed the video as:

"Complete MDI Recording" on the MDI Facebook group.

Sadat is listed as an MDI speaker and representative (http://www.thedebateinitiative.com/#/the-mdi-team/4535597151)

Roger Sharp
Confident Christianity

Austin said...

Incredibly bad form. It's as bad a voicing over a debate with a real-time commentry on the opponents points (as I have seen a couple of times).

Perhaps they are simply running out of arguments.

Dragostea said...

did the muslim user took down the debate from his youtube channel because of david's complaints? maybe he wants to edit it even more just to rub it in your face david :)

anyway...mary jo, i still have one thing to mention though: in my humble opinion, i think you should speak slower, emphasizing different words in a sentence. and the second thing: try to look more at the audience, like you were talking to individual people in the crowd...because when you read something with your head bowed down, it feels like there is an presence absence when a debate takes place...

but of course, those are just my humble opinions..

still, i think mary jo did a great job: even when you were looking at Mary jo and Tabasum you could tell who is more free, and not in bondage,,,who is more emancipated...

Joe said...

Video has been pulled from YouTube, but not before I snagged a copy on my laptop. This sort of shenanigans only serves to demonstrate the inability to form a sound response to the issue at hand. Since they apparently could not argue against the case made by MaryJo, they had to resort to character assassination to discredit her. This is another case of shooting the messenger rather than refuting the message. It is in poor form, and it deserves no place in respectful dialog.

The Fat Man said...

First the good, i'm glad they pulled it, and good job Joe for snagging it. I'm sure in the coming months and years we will hear that it NEVER HAPPED.

This is sad. I mean I enjoyed listing to Dr T, she was engaging, articulate, and even demonstrated a quick wit about her. This truly taints the debate, and I hope that she had nothing to do with it.

However like I have always said if you hold Muslims to the same standards then who's fault is it when you get disappointed.

Will said...

FINALLY after 6 MONTHS its official(sight...)

"Violent Islamic terrorism ... was part and parcel of the Ft. Hood killings," Napolitano told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday morning."


http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/24/ft-hood-attack-publicly-called-terrorism/

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Maybe Nazam44 took down the video because of the e-mail I sent to brother Anwar?

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,
As salamu 'alikum wr wb...
brother I hope you guys get a hold of your boy Nazam44 ...!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLcbMkzqtx8 < what the hell is this???

he gives commentary before the debate with that creepy eerie music playing beforehand...and than he misquotes Mary Jo Sharp she never said there was a fatwa on Riqfa Barry she said it was being discussed in facebook and twitter....

Than he gives a broadcast segement from the answeringmuslims web site complete with phone no. Why in the hell would we want to advertise for that web site and their call in program?


I dunno akhi kareem it's your debate and your call on who you feel will be responsible with the video footage... but If I were you I would have a talk with this Nazam44 and try and tone this down...

By the way your wife would be excellent if she teamed up with sister Aminah Assilmi remember her? She debated Deborah Scroggins in Milwaukee long ago...

Guess what happened to her? She got sh*t on by the Muslim community.... added benefit of converting to Islam I guess...
any way.

yours in Islam
As salamu 'alikum wr wb

Semper Paratus said...

The fact that they tried to prejudice people at the outset provides some evidence of whether they believe the Muslim side prevailed in the debate itself.

If they thought it was a clear victory, as some have asserted, then why the need to doctor the video?

The Fat Man said...

thegrandverbilizer I would be interested in the response to your email. Also what did you mean by "Guess what happened to her? She got sh*t on by the Muslim community.... added benefit of converting to Islam I guess..."

I did a google search on Aminah Assilmi and came up with the following website.


http://www.welcome-back.org/profile/aminah1.shtml


Some interesting information on her. Did you know she was a "Devout Christian...Southern Baptist... and RADICAL FEMINIST"

She also would not take a theater class that "was full of Arabs and “camel jockeys”... It was not possible for her to be in the middle of Arabs. “There was no way I was going to sit in a room full of dirty heathens!”

Well I guess thats better then the crack addicted lesbian Christian pastor that converted to Islam

The Fat Man said...

Oh this conversion story just keeps getting better and better. Another train wreck I just cant look away from.

When discussing Islam with Three Muslim visitors dressed in a long white night gown with a red and white checkered table cloth on his head”... She was very offended by Muslim men coming to her in nightgowns and pajamas"

Bartimaeus said...

I have tried 3 times to post some comments about the attak on Mary Jo but none of them have appeared. I must be making a mistake that has prevented me from doing so.

Having said that I was shocked to see the preamble attack on Mary Jo consierding I know some of those in leadership at NAMF and I have met Tabasum's husband. We have a very cordial relationship with Him.

It is unfortunate that this attack occured I have no idea who is responsible but it certianly does not help to have open and homest debate.

Sepher Shalom said...

Nazam does this type of thing frequently when he uploads debates. For example, take the debate between Adnan Rashid and James White on the Trinity and shirk. Nazam starts the video with a recitation of a Quran verse that is polemical against Biblical beliefs, then he proceeds to show clips from the debate of Adnan only, in which his main arguments against Dr. White are summarized. All this is before the actual debate footage even begins.

He does this all the time. This is really sad behavior Nazam. Is this the only way you can present your beliefs? Is Islam too weak for you to just upload the debate material without trying to bias the audience? I've seen even worse behavior from Muslims when spreading debate materials, such as putting captions below their opponent to try to 'refute' him while he is speaking, but at best that means I can say Nazam is not the worst.

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

Don't know if I am allowed to respond to 'The Fat Man' but here goes.

"I would be interested in the response to your email."

I have thus far received no reply.I do believe that brother Anwar is a sincere gentleman.

I honestly do not think this was MDI's doing. So my advice to David Wood and Mary Jo is to reconsider not wanting to interact with them in the future.

As far as your question

Also what did you mean by "Guess what happened to her? She got sh*t on by the Muslim community.... added benefit of converting to Islam I guess..."

I mean that she had a sickness of some kind (not sure from what). I would prefer that you do not make wise cracks about it as that would not be very kind.

Any who I met her at an ISNA convention in Chicago. She is a very sweet, and humble woman.

She was treated badly by her husband, and was hard pressed to get assistance of any kind from the Muslim community. My comment to brother Anwar was sarcastic in nature reflecting this reality.

I am part of a movement that believes that converts and 2nd/3rd generation Muslims should distance themselves from the immigrant community.

Some people are here just to seek the American dream, and get a piece of the pie. Other's have nefarious political agendas, and could care less about America as whole; just as long as they convert enough of us to have an enclave that they feel safe and secure in.

I'm more interested in seeing how we can help solve the problems of this country (America) working across ethnic, racial and religious divide to do so. Hince my sarcastic remarks which in hindsight were not warranted.

Sepher Shalom said...

Just browsing Nazam's YouTube page a little more, and I noticed the video he is hosting of Shabir Ally vs James White on the crucifixion. During the entire debate there is a screen caption that reads, "The Crucifiction Debate". What a nice little Deedat-ism to spell it ending in "fiction".

Does anyone know what Nazam's relationship with MDI is? Does he receive raw debate footage and edits these things in himself, or is he posting them as he receives them? Nazam, since you seem to follow this blog maybe you can answer these issues directly.

The Fat Man said...

so is the guy that posted the video the husband of teh Muslim Debator?

Streeter said...

Streeter said

I missed the Muslim version as it had been removed by the time I heard about it. It certainly is unethical but it is going to be difficult to track down the guilty party or parties. Let's just keep proclaiming the Gospel to our Muslim contact. Pray the Father will draw them to the Son and the Lord will open their hearts to receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. What joy they will experience when they are released from the bondage of Islam to the Freedom of Christ.

Streeter

Sepher Shalom said...

The Fat Man,

The YouTube channel it was originally posted on (www.youtube.com/user/Nazam44) is operated by an individual named Nazam Iqbal.

David Wood said...

I know Nazam. Nabeel and I spent some time with him in London. Seems like a decent fellow (though the video is inexcusable).

Sepher Shalom said...

David,

His few comments on this blog that I recall have always been polite. I just think the pattern of manipulation in many of his YouTube videos of debates are both unfortunate and unacceptable. I didn't get a chance to see his version of Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Typical, nobody is to blame, nobody takes responsibility.

Nakdimon said...

@ Joe.

Hi Brother, Since I missed the video, I would like to ask you to send me the file you have downloaded to your hard drive. I would like to see it for myself. You can use transferbigfiles.com and send it to nakdimon7@gmail.com.

Thanks in edvance.

To think that muslims get mad at me for asessing my debates with them and picking their arguments apart without time limits that keep me from addressing them in debates. Let's see how Muslims will respond to this cowardice act of the Muslim camp. Whether it is done by MDI or NAMF doesn't matter.

Nakdimon

The Fat Man said...

TheGrandVerbizer19

Thanks for your response, I'm wondering if you got a link to that debate? Also do you have contact info for her maybe she would like to debate Mary Jo?

The Fat Man said...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...
Typical, nobody is to blame, nobody takes responsibility.

If you recall in one of the episodes of Undercover Mosqs. It was revealed how the Mosqs are funded by a organization in KSA, the Management is a organization in Egypt, and the Book stores are owned and operated by a entire different organization. So if you complain to the organization that funds the mosq they wash their hands and say "Thats managment not us". If you complain to the management organization they say "Look we dont fund this" Then if you complain to either of them about the books sold in the book store well none of them have anything to do with it. Nobody knows nothin, and everyone is in the dark.

Totally brilliant La Cosanostra would be proud.

Abdullah said...

@ Hogan Elijah Hagbard, and a few other board members,

As Head of MDI, I have taken responsibility for the mistake that was made by one of our members and a third party (not NAMF) in Canada.

When I found out about it, me and my Muslim colleagues globally, were outraged that MDI's name had been appended to a video we did not, and would not, authorise nor comission. I have made sure that the video has been taken down - and deleted, and a Full apology has been made to both Roger and Mary Jo Sharp.

Furthermore, it seems to me that some people on this forum who profess forgiveness and understanding, have not extended this to their fellow human beings - simply because they follow a Religion different to their own. If a fellow Christian had made a worse mistake e.g. VenomfangX, Ted Haggard etc you say 'He is human, let us overlook his faults' - but the same cannot be said in your treatment of Muslims. You might hate Islam - but remember you're own golden rule 'Hate the Sin, not the Sinner'.

Lastly, David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on) and in response to my objection he wrote this in an email:

"The problem I have with your request is that you specifically said that military targets are viable during war, and you objected to our condemnation of the attack. All of this was said in the context of the Fort Hood Massacre. So I don't see how I have misinterpreted your words.

Here's the best I can do. If you'd like to write a paragraph explaining your view clearly, then I will add it to the post."

I then sent him a paragraph to append to the article, and he has, as yet, not fulfiled his word as a Christian. Do you not see how when we make a fault, we admit and correct it, but when some people here make a fault, it was deemed 'justified' because it was against the 'heathens'?

If we are to continue debate, you are going to have to learn to rise above your hate and loathing, and focus mainly on argument and discourse, with a little forgiveness and love mixed in for good measure.

Yours sincerly,

Abdullah

MDI

Joe said...

@Nakdimon:

Converting file to something a bit smaller. Original was 1.15GB in mp4. Will send when done.

minoria said...

I have just found out that MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF,the son of one of the 7 FOUNDERS of HAMAS,who became a Christian several years ago,has written a book.It's called SON OF HAMAS.Soon to be published.

He has given an interview.There he says he was working as a spy for Israel against Hamas for 10 years.Israeli intelligence has confirmed it and say he was their best agent against Hamas.They were able to prevent many terrorist attacks that could have killed hundreds because of his info.It also led to the death of several important Hamas leaders.Google it!

David Wood said...

Abdullah,

In case you didn't notice, we posted updates exonerating MDI UK, so I have no clue why you're accusing us of being unforgiving. I don't know how much you've paid attention to this blog in the past, but we try to fix things when they go wrong (e.g. when Sami Zaatari was having a dispute that got out of hand, we helped reconcile him with his opponent).

As for your support for terrorism, there's no way around your words. Practically everyone in my family has been in the military. One of my grandfathers was a Green Beret; the other was a marine. My dad was in the Navy. Even my grandmother was in the Air Force. I stopped reading your emails (the last ones you sent are still unread) because I was exceedingly angry that you support attacks against my family, and I was on the verge of flipping out. Your book calls for the death or subjugation of practically everyone I know. And you're complaining that I started ignoring your emails?

minoria said...

Hello:

I sent a post about the son of the Hamas leader who was working as a spy for Israel for 10 years.I forgot to add that he NEVER received any money for it.That comes from Israeli intelligence.He did it to stop a mafia group.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Abdullah--

Just as a point of good form, I'd suggest you not follow up your apologies with anger at people who do not accept your apologies.

Cheers,
-Nabeel

Abdullah said...

@ Nabeel,

I am not appologising to anyone here Nabeel, none of you are the ones of whom were slighted. I'm merely informed Mr Hagbard that his comments incorrect; because someone HAS taken responsibility (i.e. myself) on behalf of the individual member of MDI who erred, and have made all the required steps to redress the wrong to those who were wronged.

@ David

You misunderstand, I was NOT talking about you or Nabeel. I was referring to this blog's comment writers aka The Anti-Islam Great Sanhedrin, who made false statements from their ignorance. If only they would learn the virtues of withholding judgement pending further information, they would not expose their rancour and ire to the world.

As for your 'ignoring my emails' comment- I truly think you need to calm down David and not take a non-personal comment, personally (which I did not justify the Fort Hood Incident in the first place). The Quran says 'and let not hatred of others make you depart from doing justice' - a similar Bible verse does not come to mind at the moment, but I am sure that Jesus would want you to live up to your Word despite your anger.

Lastly, in regards to your family being all having taken up arms in the military, allow me to use the same Bible verse you used against me in a debate (and thus I hold you to your own standards): Matthew 26:52

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Abdullah wrote:

Furthermore, it seems to me that some people on this forum who profess forgiveness and understanding, have not extended this to their fellow human beings - simply because they follow a Religion different to their own. If a fellow Christian had made a worse mistake e.g. VenomfangX, Ted Haggard etc you say 'He is human, let us overlook his faults' - but the same cannot be said in your treatment of Muslims. You might hate Islam - but remember you're own golden rule 'Hate the Sin, not the Sinner'.

Hogan replies:

Abdullah is approaching this from a wrong angle. My response related to this matter prior to any apology and prior to any responsibility taken. I will fully accept that MBI has now made a public apology.

I can't help however, to think if MBI had comdemned the video unless the matter had been exposed and comdemned by Christians? As far as I now Sami has not apologized for engaging in an arranged and public debate with Keith Truth, in which he mutually agreed upon Keith being muted. And Sami as far as I am aware off is a member of MBI. I am not saying that the muting of Keith was an act blamed upon MBI (and I have to say that MBI lead the last year's debates in London in a very respectible manner), but members of MBI seem to agree upon certain suspicious conduct, which does make me think.

David Wood said...

Abdullah said: "Lastly, in regards to your family being all having taken up arms in the military, allow me to use the same Bible verse you used against me in a debate (and thus I hold you to your own standards): Matthew 26:52"

Well, seeing that I come from a non-Christian background (with the exception of my maternal grandmother), I don't see why anyone in my family would care what Matthew 26:52 says. However, you seem to be suggesting that my family deserves death, since they were in the military. Does this justify the Fort Hood Massacre in your eyes? They took up the sword, so they deserve to die by the sword of Islam?

Abdullah said...

@ David,

You know FULL well that was not what I was saying. In the debate we had, I argued AGAINST you, that the meaning of that verse does not refer to 'anyone who takes up the sword' but only 'he who's first recourse to problems, is violence' (as Augustine said).

I mentioned that verse here because I wanted to hold YOU TO YOUR OWN PROFESSED INTERPRETATION of it (unless that is, my arguments in our debate have successfully changed your mind on how to interpret it...).

To put it more clearly, I DO NOT believe that Matthew 26:52 means that people who are in the military profession, can expect to be killed. However, according to your interpretation of that verse, YOU DO BELIEVE JESUS PROPHESIED DEATH for all who take up a living using the Sword.

Again, I hold you to fulfil your WORD to me - and post my paragraph in that posting (or delete it all together - as I have clearly stated my opinions about the matter, that I DO NOT SUPPORT the actions of the Foot Hood massacre.

Abdullah said...

@ Hogan,

'I can't help however, to think if MBI had comdemned the video unless the matter had been exposed and comdemned by Christians?'

There seems to be many things you can't help to think it would seem - one of those, being a negative assumption behind the actions of Muslims.

Secondly, please correspond with Roger Sharp, he will tell you what we did. He sent me a direct email, and I initially didn't know what he was referring to, until I saw the link he sent me. I promised him I would investigate and take appropriate action - and I did. Do you really think, Hogan, that I really care enough about the opinions of this Blog, that this would move me into censoring my fellow colleagues? I wouldn't bet on it.

I, like most of my colleagues, care only about justice. And what MDI individual members did before coming into MDI, or what they do outside MDI is none of MDI's business. However, anything with our name on it, will be held accountable by MDI.

Lastly, I do not know what 'MBI' refers to, but seeing as that is not the name of our organisation, you are either 1) Someone who can't spell, 2) Ignorant of our name or 3) Someone who possesses no manners. I'll leave it to you do declare which.

The Fat Man said...

Abdullah,

First thank you and MDI for taking down the video, it did ad a TAINT, a Blemish to a otherwise refreshing debate.

Now does everyone notice how a Muslim trys to spin things. Someone at MDI screwed up. But now its the Christians who should be ashamed that they were angry when a sister of ours was wrongfully attacked. Shame shame shame on you Christians for getting upset.

And just got to love the whole "Lastly, David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on)"

What is that legal JIHAD?

But again Abdullah thanks again for taking down the video, your a stand up guy.

Sepher Shalom said...

Abdullah said: "I was referring to this blog's comment writers aka The Anti-Islam Great Sanhedrin"

What again is the exact parallel between a group of independent comment-makers on a blog and a Jewish council of Torah scholars giving legal rulings in HaEretz Yisrael? I guess that was Abdullah's college try at rhetorical whit.

Abdullah, what is MDI's official position on the Nazam44 channel adding biasing material to debate videos such as the summary of Adnan's arguments before the debate footage in this debate? For or against?

The Fat Man said...

Abdullah I think you and Muslims need a lesson on how to apologies.

Making a apology is a multi step process.

Step 1. Admit what you did, say it was wrong, say your sorry and that you will make your best efforts to never let it happen again.

Step 2. SAY NOTHING ELSE

STEP 3. REPEAT STEP 2

What I'm saying is that I have noticed that when a Muslim apologies for something, they don't cover everything in Step 1 and completely ignore steps 2 and 3.

You may admit it was wrong, and even say your sorry however Muslims will then turn on those they are apologizing to and say "BUT LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID" or worse say "YOU MUST ACCEPT MY APOLOGY. Case in point.

You followed step 1 in your first 2 paragraphs, and you should of ended it there, instead you went on for 6 paragraphs on how either Christians on this blog are not forgiving, David Wood slandard you, and how we should forgive you because Christ said so.

All of which was un necessary and irrelevant to your apology.

So lets review. The next time you apologies to Christians or anyone else, do what you did in Step 1. That was great. But remember to follow up with Steps two and three. Do not point out other peoples faults either real or imaginary, do not allude to a threat of legal action on something that has nothing to do for what you are apologizing for, and lastly do not tell others that they need to accept your apology. Because when you do say things like this, it makes your apology seem insincere.

Again thank you for taking down the video.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

"He who lives by the Sword, Dies by the Sword."

According to your Logic, I would think so Professor!

Nakdimon said...

I would like to add my $0.02 about Deuteronomy 22. It is this text that Tabasum objects about:

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel. 23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die: the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife; so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee 25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man take hold of her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death; for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the field; the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22)

According to Tabasum verses 28 and 29 sanction rape and makes the victim marry the rapist. Nothing is further from the truth. The pattern here is consensual sex. The only exception to this rule is verse 25 where the man is said to overpower the woman. In English it isn’t that apparent, but in Hebrew it does:

25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man take hold of her (Hebr.: Hechezik), and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die.

The word chazak means “strength” or “power”. This word is used in the hiph’il form, which gives it the meaning “to overpower”. So the woman is clearly forced to sleep with the man, and therefore this is clearly rape. This word, however, is absent in verse 28:

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her(Hebr.: ut’phasah), and lie with her, and they be found;

The word used here is “taphas” which means to take. This is not about rape at all. The woman is not overpowered or forced. Another stark contrast with the case where the betrothed woman is raped is the fact that the betrothed woman cries out for help, but no one was there to come to her aid whereas the woman that is not betrothed does not, in similar fashion to the verses 22-24 where those women had consensual sex with the men. So let’s look at the pattern one more time:

Verse 22: married woman commits adultery by having consensual sex with another man.
Verse 23-24: betrothed woman commits adultery by having consensual sex with another man.
Verse 25-27: woman is overpowered by the man in the field, screams for help, but can’t be heard and rescued.
Verse 28-29: woman not betrothed has consensual sex with man, man has to marry her and cant put her away, because he has shamed her and has to pay the father the brides price.

Nakdimon

The Fat Man said...

Great Point Nakdeamon, I would also like to point out a parelle passage in Exodus 22:16

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

David Wood said...

Abdullah,

I'm not sure how you're missing my interpretation of 26:52. Did you blank out when I said that, Biblically, governments can fight wars? How then are you applying my interpretation of 26:52 to people in the U.S. military???

On your use of thinkers like Augustine, see my most recent post.

As for your modified views on terrorism, I'll repost everything tomorrow, along with some new discussion. I don't want to spoil things before the unveiling, but the title is "Abdullah al-Andalusi: Defending Terrorism, Backtracking, Condemning Muhammad, and Threatening Legal Jihad." It may be my masterpiece.

The Fat Man said...

David Wood said...
"I don't want to spoil things before the unveiling, but the title is "Abdullah al-Andalusi: Defending Terrorism, Backtracking, Condemning Muhammad, and Threatening Legal Jihad."

Ohh I cant wait....

Abdullah you should of taken my advice, remember STEPS 2 and especially STEP 3.

Well maybe now you will learn KEEP YOUR MOTH SHUT

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Abdullah wrote:

Lastly, I do not know what 'MBI' refers to, but seeing as that is not the name of our organisation, you are either 1) Someone who can't spell, 2) Ignorant of our name or 3) Someone who possesses no manners. I'll leave it to you do declare which.

Hogan replies:

There we go.

Now you are resorting to proper insult Abdullah, in fact you are playing really dirty.

As many of the readers already realise, I have a real problem with spelling, I have always struggled with some sort of word-blindness in my life, which has caused me a lot of pain and difficulties.

Ussually I have to proof read whatever I read carefully, and I will find spelling errors virtually everywhere. Typically I will still correct my posts often weeks after they are posted.

For Abdullah and MDI to come here and insult me for for word-blindness is an incredible degrading and low attitude of MDI, and you are representing MDI, right now, right. Or are you simply a member acting outside MDI at the moment, even though you act unbehalf of their name.

And which manners are you referring to? Can you show me an example from my posts on this thread in which I have showed a bad manner?

Fat man is absolutely right, you guys are not sorry, you have not properly apologized, you have simply been exposed, and considerng yourself as superior and your opponents as dhimmis you don't like that.

Think of it this way, if we were in a Muslim country, the debate between Mary Jo and Tabasum would have turned out very differently, with Mary Jo would not even be permitted to question Islam or even properly to defend her Christian view. Furthermore, propaganda material such the edited video is not an unussual trick we find used in Muslim countries. So I take it that the edited video follows the typical act of propaganda that we have been exposed to throughout decades, just take Ahmed Deedat's videos and Zakir Naik's videos; this is a Muslim trend. And guess what, members of your organisation acting under your MDI title on your website (if I am correct) uploaded the video.

So what's your point attacking my word-blindness and accusing me of bad manners? Representing MDI such an insult was committed by MDI (or what), or are you simply a member of MDI, representing MDI and within your defence of MDI insulting an opponent without the response necessarily being an the act of MDI?

I might be slightly word-blind but I am not blind of logic and I find no logic so far in Abdullah's defence of MDI.

The Fat Man said...

You know what is really sad about this whole thing. Is that this was Mary Jo's and Dr Huseins night. And instead of focusing on them we are focusing on this nonsense.

Abdullah said...

@ David,

"As for your modified views on terrorism, I'll repost everything tomorrow, along with some new discussion. I don't want to spoil things before the unveiling, but the title is "Abdullah al-Andalusi: Defending Terrorism, Backtracking, Condemning Muhammad, and Threatening Legal Jihad"

Well David, you persist in Ad Hominem attacks against myself. I only asked you to fulfil your Word to me, in that you should amend your original post. However, I see that yo uhave exposed your vindictive and easily aggravatible nature to the world.

I haven't(nor MDI) made a single Ad Hominem comment about yourself either on MDI's website or on any Muslim blog or video. If you wish to attack my person whenever you feel you start losing your temper, go ahead. But know this, unlike James White (who behaves in a impeccably honourable and chivalrous manner), your behaviour is Childish. If you desire to continue Ad Hominems against myself or others, MDI will discuss a full- all points blacklisting of yourself - this includes all our U.S members, their colleagues and any other associates. We have no need to debate with people who engage in personal attacks, and slanderous behaviour. Bring arguements, not insults or skewed pulp media misrepresentation of my words.

NB. This will not apply to Nabeel Qureishi, as to my knowledge, he has not be directly party to any serious Ad Hominim attacks.

David Wood said...

Abdullah,

Do you even know what an ad hominem is? As far as logical fallacies are concerned, an ad hominem refers to pointing out an irrelevant fact about a person rather than addressing the person's argument. Here's an example:

Muslim: Jesus never died on the cross.
Christian: Don't trust him! He's an Arab!

Here the fact that someone is a Arab has no bearing on whether Jesus died on the cross, and is therefore irrelevant.

For several years, I've been claiming that Islam promotes violence towards unbelievers, and that Muslims try to hide this fact through deception. Is it irrelevant to point out that many Muslims I've debated, while proclaiming that they believe in a peaceful Islam, occasionally let their true views slip out? Of course not.

Thus, if I say something false, point out that I've said something false, and I will immediately correct it. But if I say something true, you're going to have to live with it. You've now threatened both legal Jihad and a blacklisting, as if threats are somehow going to stop me from telling the truth. How about this: I blacklist myself from all branches of MDI. How's that?

The worst part of all of this is that you seem to think I'm overreacting. Let's examine the facts. (1) You came on this blog and defended the Fort Hood massacre. (2) When I pointed out that the majority of my family members have been in the military, you misrepresented my views and suggested that, according to my interpretation of the Bible, they should all be killed. (3) After your organization attacked Mary Jo, you responded with the worst apology in history, an apology which included attacking my blog readers for, of all things, defending Mary Jo. If it's vindictive of me to expose you after all of this, then yes, I must be vindictive.

Abdullah said...

@ David Wood,

David Wood "For several years, I've been claiming that Islam promotes violence towards unbelievers, and that Muslims try to hide this fact through deception. Is it irrelevant to point out that many Muslims I've debated, while proclaiming that they believe in a peaceful Islam, occasionally let their true views slip out? Of course not"

Yes, because if you come with a pre-conception, then that will skew how you interpret what they say. What you have failed to grasp is, they have reacted like any other human being would react in the same situation and context. Please check up the cognitive biases of 'Fundamental attribution error' and 'Ultimate attribution error' - I believe you have fallen victim to both.

"Thus, if I say something false, point out that I've said something false, and I will immediately correct it."

I have - and you have failed to grasp what I have said and what I meant.

"You've now threatened both legal Jihad and a blacklisting, as if threats are somehow going to stop me from telling the truth."

I have never asked you to stop attacking Islam, David, nor criticising my arguments etc etc. I just asked if you would kindly stop attacking me personally, as I have explained what I meant - and this should suffice anyone who is sincere. If I believed the Foot Hood Massacre was justifed, would I care what you think? If the Western media or Governments do not call it a Terrorist Act (since they consider it more akin to a Columbine-style incident), then why should I feel ashamed to support it and celebrate, unless I actually did not support it?

"How about this: I blacklist myself from all branches of MDI. How's that?"

That's not what I want, as that would be 'burning the bridges' so to speak. I just want to be treated by you, as I have treated you. 'Do unto others, like you would have them do unto you'

"The worst part of all of this is that you seem to think I'm overreacting. Let's examine the facts. (1) You came on this blog and defended the Fort Hood massacre."

Nope, I merely pointed out that your condemnation of it as Terrorism is hypocritical in light of yoru silence over the methods used by the US army in afghanistan and IRaq.

"(2) When I pointed out that the majority of my family members have been in the military, you misrepresented my views and suggested that, according to my interpretation of the Bible, they should all be killed."

I did not suggest anything, I merely wanted you to comment on how you reconcile your support for the US Military with YOUR OWN PROFESSED interpretations on Jesus' teachings on Christians and violence. IT would seem my arguments i my debate presentation have changed your mind (much to my dismay).

"(3) After your organization attacked Mary Jo, you responded with the worst apology in history"

I have not made an apology on this blog at all. I do not know where you thought I had apologised to anyone here, or even why I would do so, seeing as no one here was the one who was slighted (i.e. Mary Jo).

"an apology which included attacking my blog readers for, of all things, defending Mary Jo."

No, I merely accounted them for saying things like 'no-one takes responsibility for this - typical Muslims'...etc etc

"If it's vindictive of me to expose you after all of this, then yes, I must be vindictive."

'Expose' lol - all the evidence is here for everyone to see. All that will be exposed, is how quick to anger you get. I suggest you take a breath, pray to God for calmness and guidance - then make the best decision in line with the best of Christianity's teachings.

Nakdimon said...

Abdullah, it seems you cannot discern. Let me try to help you understand what David is saying here. You wrote:

[b]“Yes, because if you come with a pre-conception, then that will skew how you interpret what they say. What you have failed to grasp is, they have reacted like any other human being would react in the same situation and context.”[/b]

This was your response to David’s pointing out that Muslims say Islam is peaceful to everyone, yet their sources say the exact opposite AND allows them to lie about it against the unbelievers. I don’t know how this response of your helps anything. It is exactly because your sources mandate violence against unbelievers and to subjugate them under the rule of Islam and tell you to lie about your true agenda that makes it impossible for us to believe you. I mean, who says that there is not a case of taqiyyah involved here? This is exactly what I believe David is aiming at. The pre-conception is forced upon us by the teachings of your religion. You cannot be trusted because of the tenants. If our Lord commanded us to fight Muslims and subjugate them under the rule of Christianity and allowed us to lie about our true face in the process, you wouldn’t be able to trust us either, would you? Be honest! So you can SAY all you want, but in the end your sources stand tall, saying exactly what David has been saying all along. And when he points this out, you guys don’t even address what he is saying, but only respond with “oh… but here it says this…”. And then you say:

[b]“I have never asked you to stop attacking Islam, David, nor criticising my arguments etc etc. I just asked if you would kindly stop attacking me personally, as I have explained what I meant - and this should suffice anyone who is sincere.”[/b]

Where are the personal attacks? It seems that you cannot even see the difference between David criticizing your arguments and criticizing you as a person. All David has been doing is addressing YOUR ARGUMENTS, not you personally! All I have seen is “Abdullah says this” or “Abdullah says that”, not “Abdullah is this” or “Abdullah is a …” or any such thing. So I suggest you get over yourself, pick yourself up and take it like a man when your arguments are being put out in the open. If you can’t take that, then I suggest you stop making public statements.

Nakdimon

Fernando said...

Uau... Yahya Hayder Seymour is back... wellcome back my olde friende... we realyy missed you arounde here... I hoppe eberithingue is well withe you...

now... about Jesus words' "He who lives by the Sword, Dies by the Sword."...

Jesus is not saying thate those who live bie the sword must be killed by the sword as muslim appologists wrongly imply, rather thate those who live by the sword are more inclined to get killed by a sword... hummm....

Fernando said...

I simply habe tos ay thate Abdullah lost, in my eyes, all off his already poor credebility: as a muslim debatour and as an human being... whate he defends is barbaric... lets, our beloved brothers in Christ, pray for him...

minoria said...

Hello:

Thanks NAKDIMON for your knowledge of HEBREW and light on Mosaic law and if Mosaic law approves of rape.Since you know the language one can trust your affirmations.

ABOUT MR. ANDALUSI

Hello:

First,thank you for taking out the video that attacked Mary Jo Sharp.It was the right thing to do.And it makes MDI look professional and serious.

SECOND

From what I gather,since Nidal is an AMERICAN(born and bred) and since he killed AMERICAN soldiers,his own people(at least on paper,Americans are his people) then he is a TRAITOR.

THE QUESTION

Is fighting the terrrorists in Afghanistan and Irak who kill tens of thousands of INNOCENTS right or wrong?I say it is right.So by logic Nidal was wrong.There is no justification for his act.If at any time you thought he was justified then that was then,people make mistakes.If you think it iswrong now,then wonderful.

MDI

I think MDI should write an article publicly condemning the terrorists of Afghanistan,Iraq,Hamas,Hizbullah,etc. as being against Islam.Maybe it has,all the better.Then it shows Mr.Andalusi now DE FACTO condems Nidal,since his views would be those of MDI.