Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Responses to Common Questions

I haven’t really been following the comments, since I’m waiting for police to return our illegally seized video cameras, which will show that Nabeel was peacefully sharing his views with Muslims who were insulting and threatening him. It is obvious to everyone that Chief Haddad has not given us the footage because it is extremely embarrassing for his department, and because the footage proves that our rights were repeatedly violated.

However, my wife went through some of the comments and came up with a list of some of the most common objections to what happened. I typed in some brief responses. I’ll probably add to the list as more comments come in.

How can you say that you were harassed and persecuted when other Christian groups, such as Josh McDowell’s, were not harassed and persecuted?

There are three general reactions to the rights violations at the Arab Festival. First, some accept the oppression, praise the Muslims at the festival, praise the mayor, and praise the police department, regardless of how Christians are being harassed. The goal is to get into position to distribute something to the Muslims despite the obstacles. This was the approach of certain ministries. Second, some seek to expose the oppression, while still following the rules. The goal is to draw attention to injustice, so that Dearborn will eventually have to correct the injustice. This was the approach of Nabeel, Paul, Negeen, and me. Third, some disobey the festival rules. This was the approach of a few Christians who handed out materials despite the unconstitutional rule against it.

It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why police and security would harass people who follow the second approach, while ignoring people who follow the first approach. The goal of Chief Haddad and the Dearborn Police Department is to reduce Christians to dhimmitude. Christians who accept that they are second-class citizens are welcome. Christians who insist that they have Constitutional rights are harassed, and even arrested.

Why did you bring video cameras, knowing that this would upset people?

We learned last year that Muslims won’t hesitate to lie about us in an effort to get rid of us. Our cameras vindicated us last year and proved that security was persecuting Christians. Security had been harassing Christians all weekend. The only difference was that we got the abuse on tape. Hence, we were careful to record everything this year, because we knew that someone would probably pull the same dishonest stunt. And we were right. A volunteer lied about us and said that we surrounded him and harassed him. We can only prove that this is a lie because we have the supposed incident on tape. If we didn’t have cameras, the charges would stand.

I would just like to add that it’s a sad state of affairs when a Christian can’t walk among Muslims without a camera because so many Muslims are willing to lie about Christians. I would be horrified if Christians were so renowned for dishonesty that people were scared to walk among us without getting video footage. Can anyone seriously object to the cameras, given the fact that people have tried to get us into trouble through deception two years running?

Why did you go to the festival even after you had been threatened, knowing that there could be problems?

We don’t believe in backing down from Muslim threats and intimidation, as this only encourages Muslims to engage in further threats and intimidation. Hence, if we’re told, “Stay off of this public street or else,” we’re probably not going to stay away.

Why would you preach Christianity at an Islamic festival? Wouldn’t you get upset if Muslims stormed your church?

This wasn’t a Muslim festival, so the church comparison just doesn’t work. This was an Arab festival—i.e. a cultural event—and people of all faiths were invited. For a more accurate parallel, let’s suppose that New York City decides to host a German festival, and that everyone is welcome. Let’s say that two Muslims show up to the German festival, and are approached by a mob of Christians, who curse at the Muslims, harass them, insult them, and threaten them, while the Muslims respond peacefully. Would it be acceptable to arrest the Muslims? Of course not. So why do so many Muslims find it acceptable to treat two Christians this way? Perhaps it’s because the Qur’an describes us as the “worst of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

Why would you hand out materials, knowing that this was against the rules?

This is a Muslim misrepresentation. We weren’t handing out anything either in 2009 or when we were arrested in 2010. A group of us tried to distribute materials two days later (Sunday) outside the festival, and we were stopped. But at no point did we ever attempt to distribute anything inside the festival.

Why did you create a disruption at a private event?

This was a public event on a public street, and we didn’t create a disruption. Muslims created a disruption, and police arrested us for having a peaceful discussion.

What would Jesus do? Would he behave like paparazzi?

Jesus would preach to the crowds, just as Peter, Paul, and the rest of the Apostles would. And if they were to preach in Dearborn, they would be harassed and threatened, just before being arrested by police officers more concerned with pleasing Muslims than with protecting rights and defending the Constitution.

Isn’t your arrest proof that you were doing something wrong since other Christians were not arrested or harassed?

Our arrest, taken by itself without any examination of evidence, is neither proof of our innocence nor proof of our guilt. Our camera footage is what proves our innocence. It is therefore no surprise that police confiscated our cameras and that they refuse to return our footage. They know that the footage will be an embarrassment for the department and proof of Chief Haddad’s anti-Christian, pro-Sharia agenda.

Why are you destroying the ministries of other churches in Dearborn?

I’m not sure how getting arrested due to false accusations would destroy the ministries of other churches. Perhaps some Christians believe that we shouldn’t defend our rights as Christians, but I think their view is extremely shortsighted. If Chief Haddad’s campaign against Christians continues, there eventually won’t be any Christian ministries in Dearborn.

Why didn’t you press charges after the assault by security at the Dearborn Arabfest in 2009? Since you didn’t press charges, doesn’t this show that your video “Sharia in the US” misrepresented the situation?

We were told by a detective in the Dearborn Police Department that he could move forward with the assaults by three of the security guards. We chose not to press charges on the condition that the security guards would not be present at the following year’s festival, and the Dearborn Police Department agreed. Imagine our surprise when one of the guards returned to harass Christians again at this year’s festival.

Why should Christians be concerned about freedom of speech since it isn’t in the Bible and is more of a secular, Enlightenment virtue?

This is absolute nonsense. Jesus said that we are to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s (Matthew 22:21). Thus, we owe a debt to both human governments and to our divine Creator. We owe a debt to our governments because they provide protection, defend our rights, etc. Paul was only able to freely preach the Gospel for so many years because there was peace within the Roman Empire. This changed later, when persecution broke out against Christians. Am I to understand that certain Christians here do not care whether we’re free to preach the Gospel? People died so that we would be able to freely preach the Gospel. I would dishonor their sacrifice if I did not preserve their legacy.

How can you say that police are implementing Sharia law when most of them are not Muslims?

If they’re taking away the rights of Christians in order to satisfy Muslims, then they’re implementing Sharia law, according to which Christians are not free to preach to Muslims. True, many of the officers are simply following orders, but they’re following the orders of a chief who demands that Christians be harassed, persecuted, and bullied.

Weren’t you just there to create a show?

We were there for a number of reasons (sharing the Gospel, exposing injustice, defending freedom, etc.), but we weren’t there to create a show. Of course, we understood from the beginning that there was a good chance that Muslims would attack us (given the threats we received), but this has nothing to do with us putting on a show. This would be the fault of Muslims.

Since even some of your fellow Christians have publicly denounced your behavior as disruptive and troublesome, doesn’t that prove that you were?

I would love to have some of these Christians point to something specific. Did we insult anyone? No. Did we threaten anyone? No. Did we harass anyone? No. Nabeel peacefully shared his beliefs with Muslims who approached him. If this is too much for local Christians, it seems that Dearborn is in worse shape than we imagined. I suspect that if Jesus, or Paul, or Peter were to preach in Dearborn today, they would be utterly condemned by some of the churches in Dearborn.


Jeffrey Pacheco said...

If Christians are too follow the laws which suppress the spread of the Gospel, we should have no underground churches in arab and communist countries.

We should stop sending missionaries to them, or distribute the Bible illegally.

What Acts17 did is to prevent Christians in the US become lawbreakers if they decide to share their faith to Muslim community in USA.

Wake up Christians in America!

Unknown said...

Congrats and hats off to all of you for having that courage to wade into the pit of despair that is the Muslim world! Your courage knows no bounds and Jesus is certainly looking down upon you with sparkling eyes and so happy to see you (and help you) with your mission and ministry!

Hang in there. Countless Christians are keeping you in their prayers!


mkvine said...


I'm happy that you guys are out there preaching the Gospel despite all the threats and harrasment you have recieved. You guys did nothing wrong, so far no one has been able to point to a specific example of what you guys supposedly did wrong. Everything the haters are saying are just empty statements with no proof whatsoever. And I feel sorry for those Christians who rather submit to the demands of the Muslims and embrace dhimmitude, than to stand up for themselves and defend their constitutional rights. Great job thoroughly explaining all these misconceptions and lies being charged against you. God Bless.

minoria said...

This should answer all the accusations against David and Nabeel.It is a shame people should doubt them.Unfortunately there alot of intolerance and irrationalsim among Muslims,I would say the majority.

MALAYSIA:it is against the law to leave Islam,to convert Muslims.Or jail time.

ALGERIA:it is against the law to leave Islam,to convert Muslims.Or jail time.

In MOROCCO you can't convert Muslims.That is the Muslim mentality.We are in the 21st century and they are in the 7th century.

hugh watt said...

How it looks to me:

1. Christians who bring the Gospel to those who are on their way to Hell, regardless of the cost to their personal safety/liberty.

2. Christians who have issues with the method used by Acts 17, perhaps because it's not their style of outreach.

3. Christians who are the lovey-dovey type who think saying, 'Jesus loves you,' is what will win souls to the Lord. They should try this on with the radicals; just hold a hand and stroke a finger whilst saying it.

4. Professing 'christians' who are offended by the Gospel and have their own 'gospel.'

5. Non-religionists who know the dangers of Islam and support what the Christians are trying to do in exposing the unequal rights in Dearborn; coming to your neighborhood soon?

6. Muslims, not Arabs, who want to spread Islam but hate Christians reaching out to Muslims with the Truth.

7. Muslims who pretend not to be, but just want to try dividing Christians on this issue.

8. Non-religionists who come on this blog to offer their criticisms, mainly of Christians. Sharia may be on its way to your neighborhood soon, let's see what they say then.

Is chief Haddad a Muslim? This would help somewhat.

Van Grungy said...

Just thought people here might enjoy this video. Very informative.

I know it's off topic, but this information is very relevant to the question: What the heck happened to our society?

When our hippy dippy marxists make common cause with islam, there is a reason why...

Stay cool...

Lydia McGrew said...

Just a clarification: I am totally, totally on your side. I have referred to the decision not to press charges last year as a mistake, and I do believe it was a real mistake. But this does not in _any way_ mean that I am implying that any of your videos or statements are misrepresentations. I believe you guys are very brave and are completely telling the truth. Just don't accept more promises from the police department in return for not pressing charges you could press, that's all. Go for it in the courts to the full extent of the law.

1MoreMuslim said...

Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Follow Paul's teachings and be quite.

Hank said...

Count me as one who entirely supports your efforts to expose and oppose creeping sharia. This is a problem which will only get worse, until more of us make the kind of effort you're making.

I'm looking forward to the availability of your video. Also, if you have additional eye-witness accounts, it would be good to see them posted.

Best Regards,

Peter Pike said...

1moremuslim said:
Follow Paul's teachings and be quite.

First, you don't obey the government when it commands you to disobey God. Secondly, our nation was founded on the principal of rex lex, which is that the LAW is king, not any man. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that, for the American, it is not only our right, but it is our *duty* to rebel against unjust governments. As American citizens, therefore, we are not only able, but required by the principals upon which our government was founded, to fight for our individual rights. Therefore, to fight against unconstitutional measures is to obey the higher law, upon which our nation was founded: that no tyranny is permissible. Therefore, to obey Paul here would require us to obey the higher law of resisting the tyrants who would take away our rights, upon which our government was founded.

But nice try.

Adam said...


Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Follow Paul's teachings and be quite

Wow, out of context much?

1. Paul was not dealing, in context, with laws of government that contradict the law of God. In fact, Christians were well known to be obedient to the laws of the land, except in areas that contradicted clear commands of God.

2. Paul, in this same passage, calls the governing authorities "ministers of God," and thus is telling us that these authorities are responsible to God for what they do.

3. There are many examples in the Bible of christians who were not submissive to civil authorities in the way you suggest. Peter, for example, when told by the civil authorities to stop preaching said, "We must obey God rather than men" [Acts 5:29]. Also, Paul himself, when he was falsely accused did not just submit to those authorities, but appealed to Ceasar [Acts 25:11].

4. #3 suggests that you have a grossly simplistic view of submission to authority. There are hierachical structures of authority within the Bible, and God's authority is higher than the authority of the civil magistrates, the church, or the family. We are to be in submission to the family, church, and state, but when any of these authorities contradict the ultimate authority of God's word, "we must obey God rather than men."

5. Our highest governing authority, the constitution, actually forbids what these police officers did.

God Bless,

Fernando said...

1moremuslim said... «Follow Paul's teachings and be quite»...

another ignorant muslim (a non ignorant muslim woulde be a contradiction in terms...) tottaly ignorant off bible hermeneutics and contextual analisis trying to make more dhimmis...

iff those authorities were doing thir job (and they were not, I'm sure nothing off this woulde habe happened...)...

by the way: are you having sex withe 8 years old babyes following the great moral example thate the qur'an say thate muhammad is to every muslim?

Rhology said...

One hopes you brothers will not hesitate to press charges this time.

jct said...

1moremuslim, pointing that verse out of the context of the entire New Testament was something that the Gestapo did against members of the Confessing Church, notably Dietrich Bonhoffer, who in their own nonviolent way refused to let the Nazis dictate their conscience. As a matter of fact, the apostle Paul himself, who wrote those words, did not simply submit to the authorities when they told him to shut up and stop preaching the Gospel (causing 'trouble'). And what the Acts17 guys did was nothing compared to what apostles like Paul, Peter and John did in the early days of the church. That's why most of them ended up getting killed: because they defied the authorities that tried to stop them from following their God-given conscience and obey God more than men.

jebd said...

1moremuslim said...
Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Follow Paul's teachings and be quite."


Another mis-interpretation; Please don't miss vs 3 "Rulers hold no terror for those who do right but for those who do wrong.." presumes these rulers are not violating what is right..Yes we can live as Christians under persecution when no providence is made for appeal under the laws of the land ( a sad fact in many mid-eastern countries) but under democracy the law allows for this freedom to expose unfairness...a good example from biblical times is Paul (who btw wrote Romans) when he was persecuted and thrown to Jail unjustly, precisely made use of the right of a Roman Citizen to ask the authorities to come and apologize and escort him out.


jebd said...

Reference Acts ch 16 specifically vs 35-37

1MoreMuslim said...

Romans 13
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

The only government that Paul knew was the Roman Government, is US Government worst than the Romans? Paul did not make exceptions, ALL authorities are instituted by God.

What would you do with Turn the other cheek? Love your enemy? Thrown in bin?

Peter Pike :
What is the highest law? God's law or the US Law? Would you fight for same sex marriage as instituted by the highest law?
Paul appealed to Caesar to escape death penalty, that is why he was so obedient to the Authority.

Paul says that same sex marriage is wrong, would you force the government to PUNISH the wrongdoers?

Tom Forsythe said...

If the police seized evidence of their own misconduct, and are concealing it, they could be charged with obstruction of justice.

Hank said...

Regarding the comments about "following Paul's teaching," it seems to me that these gentlemen were respectful of law enforcement and complied with their demands: I don't see any defiance here.

In America, authority rests, ultimately, with the electorate. The Acts17 folks are educating that electorate. I don't think that's contrary to Paul's instruction.

Also worth noting, the Apostles made it clear that, when earthly authority and their own call to evangelize were in conflict, evangelism takes priority.

Unknown said...

I have had numerous demonstrations, including one last July 4 outside of the ISNA convention in Washington DC. In EVERY case, the police are there defending me and defending my freedom of speech.

See for yourself:

But my approach is to work inside the law, always communicate with law enforcement about what I am going to do in advance. It does not appear this group did that. Or if it did, who did you speak to specifically?

Are there specific pamphleteering laws that apply to certain areas of Dearborn, Michigan? If so what are they, and have you sought to get these laws changed?

I think providing real specifics would add a lot of credibility to your case.

Tom Forsythe said...


Your comment implies that the Christians in this case broke the law. They did not. The police did.

Also note that the Apostle Paul appealed directly to Caesar when his rights were violated by local authorities. Acts 22-23

Haecceitas said...

There's one misconception that I've seen on few websites and forums that discuss these events. Many people seem to confuse the video about you handing out the Gospel of John outside the festival area with the events that led to the arrest. Consequently, some have pointed out the "discrepancies" like your saying that you didn't hand out literature vs. the video where you did. Perhaps you should add a note of clarification in the video?

John Lollard said...

1moremuslim, I mean this as respectfully as I can.

I don't know if you are a native English speaker, but I do not understand what point it is that you think you are making with your last post.

Paul believed all governments were instituted by God,yes, and therefore the Christian is to obey the just laws of government so far as he or she can and still remain faithful to God's law. Most American Christians believe that American government is instituted by God, and therefore that Christians in America are to conform to American law as much as possible (which is why it is so frustrating to drive behind a Christian on a highway). None of that is in dispute.

But when a government enforces an unjust law, we have both a Biblical and an American obligation to defy that unjust law. Confessing Iesu Kurias was outlawed at the time of the apostles, yet they do so constantly, Paul among them, and are subsequently arrested for it and eventually brutally killed for it.

All authorities are instituted by God, even including the ungodly empires that destroyed Israel and brought her into exile, and yet God still calls their actions wicked and punishes these empires for them.

"What would you do with Turn the other cheek? Love your enemy?"

You obey them as the commands of He Who is Love, as the instructions of the only God and Savior Jesus Christ who died to set all men free, who reigns eternally as the Redeemer of His people, who is the firstborn over all creation by whom and through whom all things hold together, for whom all things were created. Is what you do with them.

I'm not sure why we'd need to do anything else with them. As we keep repeating and yet as I will repeat anyway,

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar and render unto God what is Gods Matt 22:21

Preaching the Gospel and turning the other cheek is not Caesar's. It is God's.

"Paul says that same sex marriage is wrong, would you force the government to PUNISH the wrongdoers?"

I know that you are a Muslim, and to you divine command and governmental regulation are the same thing, but in Christianity they are not. Homosexual unions are wrong and in disobedience to God; not just Paul says it, but Moses and Jude as well. That has nothing to do with governmental regulations on sexual behavior, one way or another. Paul says that premarital sex is likewise a sin (and in fact says this more often than anything about homosexual sex) and yet neither is that against the law. I further know of no Christian reason to make it against the law or Christians who wish it against the law, because in Christianity what is God's (morality) and what is Caesar's (legislation) are two different spheres.

Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, it does not operate as an earthly government in the world, it does not consist of kings and presidents and legislatures. Unlike the Islamic Ummah.

I hope that clarifies your confusion about Christianity morality in respect to legal authorities.

Love in Christ,

Peter Pike said...


I realize logic isn't your strong point, but I already anticipated and addressed your concerns. My first point was we obey God instead of man when man's law contradict's God's law. My second point demonstrated how nothing the Dearborn police have done follows American law and therefore we have an obligation, as American citizens, to stand against that government. If you would like to address either of those two points--you know, the points I actually *made*--then I will be happy to continue conversing with you. If you want to address a completely different random topic, then there's no use in continuing.

Tom Forsythe said...

John Lollard

Well said.

Tom Forsythe said...


Even if there were local bylaws that forbid the actions of the missionaries, those laws would be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. As such, they would be under no obligation to obey them.

Jay44 said...

Sorry, I forgot to list the URL for that CBN page. Here it is:

Jay44 said...

I think R.E.A.L. has a point. When I went to the CBN page about this incident (URL listed below), the article described a policy in place at Dearborn that barred the distribution of religious material near that event. If that's the case then I hate to say it, but it would seem that the Police are within their rights and indeed have an obligation to enforce that policy on Christians handing out religious booklets, which is what David and his crew were doing. It may be unconstitutional, but it's at the present moment within the rights of their Police officers to enforce it and arrest Christians who do otherwise. Why such a policy is in place is beyond me, but according to the article, a judged upheld the policy so obviously it was being challenged, as it should be.

Anthony Rogers said...


You may know this, but I just wanted to underscore that the fellas were not arrested for handing out pamphlets. They were arrested on another occasion for talking to people who approached them. On that occasion they were not handing out anything.

The unconstitutional law about not handing out literature, even outside the event on a public street or anywhere else within five blocks of the event, was exposed later. At that time, I don't even know if they were aware (and how could they be?) that such a law was in place. Once they were informed that it was illegal to hand out free literature on a public street in areas of Dearborn where Sharia is in effect, they complied.

Anthony Rogers said...

(And by "fellas" I mean Negeen also) :)

Jay44 said...

Hi Anthony,

Well if that was the case, then the police were wrong. In the video, however, I remember seeing one of the Christians handing out the St. John pamphlet (at least that's what I assume it was) to people walking by. Soon after the police showed up and arrested them and David. David wasn't handing it out, true, but he was part of the group that was clearly seen handing it out on video. If that's the case then it's hard to make a case against the police. I know it's a stupid and unconstitutional policy but if that's the policy then the police seem correct in doing what they did in the events that followed, unless I'm missing something. Just trying to be objective.

Nazam said...


if the plaintiff brings up the point that other missionary organisations were allowed to preach and share their faith with others and yet they were not arrested for disorderly conduct. In fact Josh Mcdowell even had a film crew last year filming him proselytize Muslims.

And your defense is going to be that these other Christian group choose to subdue themselves while we choose not too, I don't think the judge is going to be so convince by your explanation.

Unknown said...

Two questions:

1. If the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled that Christian evangelist George Saieg could distribute literature on the festival perimeter, why wasn't he arrested?

2. The Mission News Network (MNN) is reporting that Christian Pastor Haytham Abi-Haydar of the Arabic Fellowship Alliance Church states that Acts 17 was arrested for being "confrontational" with the crowd. Is the MNN report true, and if not how do you respond to it? It appears to quote David Wood who appears to state that Acts 17 was "confrontational" in its approach. Is that true or not?

David Wood said...


The plaintiff isn't going to have anything to say. We have everything on videotape. The videotape will show Nabeel having a peaceful dialogue, while the rest of us stand there with video cameras. The police locked us up for doing absolutely nothing wrong. What could bringing up Josh McDowell possibly have to do with whether we're guilty of a crime?

BTW, suppose you were to go to Speaker's Corner one day. While you're there, a racist yells, "Let's get that raghead!" A few of them then proceed to beat you up. What would you think if a critic were to respond by saying, "Well, there were other Muslims at Speaker's Corner that day, and they weren't attacked. Therefore, Nazam wasn't attacked either." Would such a reply make sense to you?

David Wood said...

R.E.A.L. said: "The Mission News Network (MNN) is reporting that Christian Pastor Haytham Abi-Haydar of the Arabic Fellowship Alliance Church states that Acts 17 was arrested for being "confrontational" with the crowd. Is the MNN report true, and if not how do you respond to it? It appears to quote David Wood who appears to state that Acts 17 was "confrontational" in its approach. Is that true or not?"

I'll repeat for the millionth time: We have everything on video tape (provided the police haven't erased them). The video tapes will show Muslims harassing, insulting, and threatening us. The tapes will also show that we never responded in kind.

As for Haytham, I have to confess, I believe he has an unbiblical approach to reaching out to Muslims. He seems to believe that Christians should behave as dhimmis around Muslims, only preaching the Gospel in secret, for fear of upsetting someone. I don't know how he can bear to read the book of Acts. He actually demanded that we apologize to the Muslims who assaulted us last year.

David Wood said...


We weren't arrested for handing out Bibles. That was a different day. We thought we were allowed to hand out Bible's outside of the festival. When they told us to stop, we stopped.

We were arrested two days earlier. Nabeel was having a discussion with a rowdy group of Muslims. The rest of us were standing there holding cameras. We were all put into jail cells. Do you think the police were within their rights?

Anonymous said...

Dhimmies listen up. I was in Dearborn and I was not more than 10 feet away when these events happened. Sinse when does having a camera at a public event constitute harassment. Three people had cameras. They did not point their cameras at any one particular indiviual. Paul and Nageen had their cameras pointed at David. David had his camera pointed at Nabeel and his interaction with the Muslims. Now how does that constitute harassment?

The ones who were harassing were the Muslims. They are the ones who threatened Nabeel. Nabeel told those that threatened him that he loved them because Jesus loved them.

The ones that should have been arrested were the Muslims not the Dearborn 4. Truly this is Shariah in the City.

Let me state this I will gladly come to Dearborn and state in court exactly what I saw.


The Berean Search said...

It funny how people like 1moremuslim are so eager to quote the Bible when they believe they can use it in way to justify their agendas and to tell Christians to be dhimmies.


I will not be your dhimmi, and I doubt any other Christian who regularly reads this blog will be your dhimmi either. Keep your Sharia out of my free country. It's garbage, and any so-called god that you think 'revealed' it is garbage as well.

Nazam said...

"Well, there were other Muslims at Speaker's Corner that day, and they weren't attacked. Therefore, Nazam wasn't attacked either." Would such a reply make sense to you?"

No, I agree with you that wouldn't make sense. I just feel that there is more to the story. It seems from the way you are describing the event, you weren't behaving any different from McDowell's group and yet his group wasn't arrested but you were. I guess we will just have to wait and see how this case turns out.

Jay44 said...

Hi David, it appears I confused your arrest with the incident that happened on the YouTube clip. I went back to review that YouTube video "Dearborn Police: Defending Islam against the constitution". The video seems to somewhat disseminate a confusion concerning that particular day and the arrest that happened two days earlier according to you. It makes it appear like you were arrested and put in jail after the police approached you and took your camera. After all, at 3:16 of that video a black screen is put up with a statement in white letters stating that you guys "were taken into custody" (which could be interpreted as being put in a jail cell, especially given your comments about such an arrest).

For me, I confused that moment with the actual arrest you were talking about before. I'm guessing also that the person who interviewed you at Fox news also confused your arrest with that clip. Now that that's cleared up, I'll answer your question. No, I absolutely do not think that the police were right to arrest all of you.