Abdullah al-Andalusi on Fighting Unbelievers

In this video, convert to Islam Abdullah al-Andalusi (Director of the international Muslim Debate Initiative) admits that he agrees with all of the following quotations. His only qualification is that he doesn't agree with the "spin" I put on the quotations (i.e. my commentary). For those interested in discerning Abdullah's true views, here are the quotations without my commentary.

Ibn Kathir—“Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizya they should be fought till they are killed.”

Ibn Taymiyyah—“Whoever has heard the summons of the Messenger of God . . . and has not responded to it must be fought.”

Shaybani—“Combat those who disbelieve in God.”

Burhanuddin Ali—“The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors.”

Averoes—“Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought.”

Ibn Khaldun—“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

Ibn Abi Zayd—“Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. . . . [I]t is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of . . . converting to Islam or paying the poll tax, short of which war will be declared against them.”

Since Abdullah agrees with these quotations, he must also agree with Muhammad's teachings, which serve as the foundation for the Islamic claim that unbelievers must be fought. Consider the following:

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Now since Abdullah agrees with all of these teachings, and since these teachings are perfectly clear, why would Abdullah spend so much time trying to convince Western audiences that Islam is a religion of peace? Well, Muslims aren't just supposed to fight us. When Muslims are outnumbered by unbelievers (e.g. in the U.K. and America), they're also supposed to deceive us.

Qur'an 3:28—Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.

Ibn Kathir on 3:28—Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''

Of course, Muslims vary widely in their knowledge of Islamic thought and in their view of when they should deceive unbelievers. This explains the diversity in the Muslim world. I find that Muslims fall into three main categories:

(1) Muslims like Osama bin Laden, who want to kill unbelievers and don't try to hide it at all.
(2) Peaceful Muslims who genuinely believe that Islam is peaceful, and therefore don't have anything to hide.
(3) Muslims like Abdullah al-Andalusi and Yahya Snow (and even entire Muslim groups, such as CAIR), who are constantly trying to deceive us.

Being aware of these differences can help us not to lump all Muslims into the same category, and not to fall for the devices of Muslims in the third category.

Abdullah al-Andalusi: Does MDI Need New Leadership?

Well, we finally have the missing piece of the debate-cancellation puzzle. As it turns out, my first suspicion was spot on. If you recall, I initially accused Yahya Snow and the Muslim Debate Initiative of conspiring to shut down open dialogue. When two members of MDI (Sami and Yahya Seymour) said they didn’t know what I was talking about and that there was no ban from MDI, I removed all mention of MDI from my initial post.

Alas, I acted too soon, not because I pointed a finger at MDI, but because I excused the organization. The primary culprit in ending several public debates next month was none other than MDI’s director, Abdullah al-Andalusi. (I assume Sami and Yahya weren’t aware of Abdullah’s actions when they posted their comments here.)

The results have been disastrous. Locations had been rented, a professional film crew hired for all of the debates, and advertisements sent out. When Sheikh Awal backed out of his debates with me, Sam no longer wanted to debate him. Since Sheikh Awal’s cancellations had such a negative effect on next month’s plans, the Center for Religious Debate is no longer willing to work with him for future debates (which put an end to two debate series in September and November, and to most of Sheikh Awal’s debate opportunities in the U.S.). Due to MDI’s underhanded involvement in the cancellations, the Center for Religious Debate has decided not to work with MDI in the future. (Note: The vast majority of Christian-Muslim debates in America are arranged by the Center for Religious Debate.) In other words, somewhere in the ballpark of 90% of the Christian-Muslim debates that would have taken place over the next few years are now officially over.

So why did the leader of a group called the “Muslim Debate Initiative” work behind the scenes to put an end to public debates? I debated Abdullah three times less than a year ago (see here, here, and here). What’s changed since then to account for his move from “Let’s debate David” to “Let’s ban David”? Only one thing. I drew attention to Abdullah’s comments on terrorism. When Abdullah defended the Fort Hood Massacre, I pointed out what he said (and allowed him to respond, giving readers the opportunity to make up their own minds). Not long after, Abdullah called in to “Jesus or Muhammad” during our discussion of the Fort Hood Massacre, and he admitted that he agrees with some of the most violent teachings of classical Muslim scholars (properly interpreted, of course). Interestingly, after a call for peace from Sami Zaatari, I never posted the clip. But since things have changed a bit, consider what Abdullah says.



Abdullah was in a position that no debater wants to be in. He was applying his “Argument from Orthodoxy” against us. If he were consistent, he’d have to agree with the violent teachings I quoted (which would get him into quite a bit of trouble). If he doesn’t agree with the violent teachings I quoted, then he would have to admit that he doesn’t really believe the “orthodoxy” criterion he so vehemently applies to Christians (meaning that he was being deceptive or illogical in applying it to us). His solution? He says he agrees with the violent passages . . . without the spin. Unfortunately for Abdullah, we didn’t spin any of the passages, and the meanings were perfectly clear to our viewers.

So what does a young debater do when his true views start rising to the surface? Does he apologize for what he’s said? Does he try to keep a tighter reign on his words? No. Abdullah’s solution is to silence anyone who would dare expose him. Normally, this would be impossible. But Abdullah has been spending all his time over the last two years getting Muslims around the world to join his group. Why? To debate? Obviously not. It seems that Abdullah wants to control the debate spectrum. He wants to control who debates, when they debate, what topics they debate, and so on.

There is one thing that bothers me more than anything else, however. Instead of openly declaring some sort of “Anti-David” boycott, Abdullah decided to work behind the scenes, shutting down opposition under cover of darkness. What’s worse, he was completely willing to let Yahya Snow take the fall for his manipulation. If you recall, Yahya Snow had proclaimed a boycott by a Muslim apologetics group. When MDI assured me that there was no such ban, and Yahya refused to identify a group, I accused Yahya of telling tall tales. In reality, Abdullah was secretly shutting down debates, and he apparently convinced Yahya to keep quiet (which ultimately didn’t work too well, since Yahya decided to point me in the right direction). But what did Abdullah do when I was accusing Yahya? Did he jump in and say, “Don’t blame him. I did it. I’m responsible.” Not at all. He was completely willing to let Yahya take the fall, despite the fact that Abdullah played a much larger (and more sinister) roll. While Yahya has always been open about his desire to shut down public debates, Abdullah continued to portray himself as a champion of public debates (even though he was behind the scenes plotting to overthrow anyone who dares challenge him, all the while letting other people take the blame).

Is this the sort of person who should be running a debate organization—a man who can’t handle criticism, who uses his position to thwart those who expose his statements, who throws his fellow Muslims under the bus to further his own selfish agenda, and who lets his fellow Muslims take the fall for his deceptive and manipulative misdeeds?

Abdullah al-Andalusi (like Yahya Snow, leaders of CAIR, etc.) portrays himself as a respectful Muslim. But there’s a massive difference between what Abdullah says to your face and what he says behind your back. Is anyone surprised? As Muhammad’s companion Abu Darda put it, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.''

I have no desire to continue debating in an atmosphere of deception, manipulation, intimidation, and cowardice. It seems I’ll now be turning to atheists for a good debate. (Sadly, I suspect I’ll find more integrity among atheists than I have found with Abdullah.) I will continue to expose Islam on this blog, on YouTube, and on “Jesus or Muhammad.” But after the events that have already been scheduled for next month, I will not engage in public debates with Muslims.

In case anyone wants the context to the above video, here’s the full discussion with Abdullah. (Note: This was shortly after the Fort Hood Massacre, which Abdullah had already defended. After going through Major Nidal Malik Hassan’s PowerPoint presentation, a Muslim called in to defend the massacre. Needless to say, with temperatures running high, Abdullah’s attempts to distort the Bible and evade questions were not well-received. As a rule, don’t expect a perfectly polite exchange following terrorist attacks!)

Is Violence Taught in Islam?

I just wasted half an hour on Facebook quoting passages that some Muslim friends of mine are ignoring in an effort to assert that Islam is peaceful. Since they're ignoring these passages, I'm going to post them here in hopes that they'll be useful to somebody.

By the way, this is a slightly nuanced question. Usually we address the question "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" and this allows people to provide peaceful passages, ignore all the violent ones, and answer the question by saying "Of course!" Well, now we're asking "Is Violence Taught in Islam?" No getting around it this time.

Qur'an 9:29:
Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur'an 9:5:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Bukhari 1.2.24:
Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle..."

Bukhari 1.8.387:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'

Bukhari 4.53.392:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land...

Bukhari 9.92.388:
"...Allah's Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight the people till they say 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'... "

Muslim 1.33:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah...

Muslim 14.4294:
Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...

Muslim 14.4366:

It has been narrated by 'Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Spencer and Geller on Fox News

Hmmm. I seem to recall that someone just predicted that one of the major media organizations would start to crack, and that more and more criticism of Islam would be permitted. And here we find Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer on Fox News discussing plans to construct a mosque. Pamela even had a chance to point out CAIR's ties to terrorism! Unheard of!

G. K. Chesterton on Resisting Tyranny

"The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists." ~G. K. Chesterton

Islam in the News

What kind of world do we live in when stories like these no longer shock us?

NO LONGER SURPRISING STORY #1

SHEIKHUPURA, PAKISTAN (ANS) -- Sidra Sarwar, a fourteen-year-old Christian girl, has been allegedly raped by three Muslim men and held in captivity for about three months, ANS has learned.

According to Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan (SLMP), Muhammad Khalid, a Muslim man used indecent language against her when she was walking through the local fields in August 2009.

The organization then alleged that Khalid and two accomplices kidnapped Sidra at gun point on August 28, 2009 at 5 pm.

The ministry said that each of the three kidnappers allegedly raped Sidra for a month. The SLMP said that Muhammad Khalid married Sidra after she became pregnant to avoid being prosecuted.

SLMP said Sidra managed to escape from captivity and reached her family on December 20, 2009.

“The poor family tried best to get a case registered against Khalid and his fellows but failed. After a month some Christian elders helped Sidra and pressurized local police and finally the Police First Information Report was registered against the culprits on January 20, 2010”, said Sohail Johnson, Chief Coordinator of SLMP.

Johnson told ANS that when police officers conducted a raid to arrest culprits they (the police) discovered that they had secured a pre-arrest bail.

The Christian rights activist told ANS that the culprits got away with rape and kidnapping after Muhammad Khalid produced wedding certificate in the court.

The SLMP said the police declared culprits innocent on May 13, 2010.

Mr. Johnson told ANS that Sidra is 8 months pregnant. He added, “The girl and her family are allegedly receiving threats from the culprits to stop them from pursuing justice”. Source.

NO LONGER SURPRISING STORY #2

U.K. An obsessed schoolboy of 14 who murdered his ex-girlfriend and her sister in an arson attack on their home in revenge for being dumped is facing a life sentence.

Akmol Miah targeted Maleha Masud, 15, and got his cousin to help him pour petrol through her family's letterbox and light it while they slept.

During his trial Miah could not be named because of his age but a judge today took the unusual step of lifting the reporting restriction because of the seriousness of the case.

The Old Bailey heard he had been in an on-off relationship with Maleha for only three months but during that time contacted her 1,679 times by texts or telephone.

She kept the relationship secret from her mother because it had not been approved by her traditional Muslim family.

Miah tried to exploit her fear by threatening to tell her mother if they did not stay together.

When she finally ended it for good he told Maleha: 'I'm going to f*** your family up', the court heard.

He searched on Google for 'how to burn someone's house down' the day before the attack on her home in Tooting, south London, at 4.30am on June 21 last year - and later celebrated his success by storing a picture of the burnt house as his computer screensaver, the jury was told.

Prosecutor Jonathan Laidlaw said: 'His feelings for Maleha spiralled completely out of control. He became so obsessed with her that if he could not have her, nobody else could.'

As the fire raged, Maleha's mother Rubina, 55, and older brother Zain, 24, a City banker, managed to jump to safety from a window. Other brother Junaid, 18, was lucky to survive after being rescued by firefighters.

Both Maleha and her sister Nabiha, 21, who had recently become engaged, were also pulled from the blaze.

But Maleha had suffered carbon monoxide poisoning and brain damage and died three days later in hospital. Nabiha, who was also poisoned by the fumes from the fire, died a month later in hospital. Read more.

NO LONGER SURPRISING STORY #3

LAHORE: The leader of a madrassa allegedly abducted a minor Hindu girl from Rahim Yar Khan and did not let her parents meet their daughter, claiming that the girl had converted to Islam and no longer wanted to meet her “non-Muslim relatives”.

Radha (13) was abducted in December 2009, her parents told Daily Times, adding that they had “knocked on every door stretching from the president of Pakistan to Punjab chief minister and chief secretary, but to no avail”. “Local police, including the former and current district police officers of Rahim Yar Khan, are supporting the people who abducted Radha and are neither registering a first information report (FIR) against the accused, nor are they taking any action to recover the girl from the custody of Abdul Jabbar and Naveed,” they alleged.

Several human rights activists and local Hindu leaders have termed the incident “another case of forced conversion” and slammed the government for not addressing the concerns of the victim’s family.

Mehnga Ram – Radha’s father – told Daily Times that his daughter had been missing since December 21, 2009, and that the family had searched for her everywhere before some friends informed them that their girl was in the possession of the leader of the Darul Aloom in Khanpur.

“We went to the Abdul Jabbar, the head of the madrassa, and others and requested them that our girl be returned to us.”

Forget the girl: They initially denied that Radha was in their custody, but later admitted the fact only to then tell us that they could not allow us to meet our daughter since she had converted to Islam and did not want to see any of her non-Muslim relatives,” the father said, adding that he then went to the authorities, seeking to register an FIR against the culprits, but the police said they could not register an FIR because the “girl had converted and the family should just forget the matter”. Read more.

NO LONGER SURPRISING STORY #4

GUJRANWALA, Pakistan, May 25 (CDN) — A Christian who accused a Muslim of raping his 12-year-old daughter has fled his town in Punjab Province with his family following death threats and police pressure to drop the case.

Citing “continuous threats” to take his life, Zafar Masih left Gujranwala’s predominantly Muslim town of Nai Abadi Tatlay Aali within 10 days of accusing Ali Ahmed, a 28-year-old businessman, of beating and raping his daughter on May 12.

His daughter, whose name was withheld, told Compass that her employer, Ahmed, beat and raped her when she went to his home, where she worked as a house servant. When she arrived she was surprised to find him at home in his room, she said.

“He grabbed my hair and asked me to sleep with him,” she said, amid tears. “I refused to let him have sexual relations with me, which enraged him.”

Her body marred with bruises, she said he tore her clothes and she screamed, but no one else was in the home to hear her.

“Ali Ahmed overpowered me, and all my efforts were futile even though I strained with all my energy to stop him,” she said. “After getting stigmatized, I was threatened with dire consequences and the slaying of my whole family if I told about the rape.”

The oldest of four children, she fled the house and immediately sent her younger brother to call her father, who was working in a nearby field, she said.

Masih, her father, said he immediately went to Tatlay Aali police station and submitted an application to file a First Information Report against Ahmed. Station House Officer Inspector Iqbal Ojjhra refused, he said, and began to pressure him to withdraw the application.

A powerful local politician along with the area’s largest land owner, Imtiyaz Kharral, have since threatened to maim or kill him, Masih said. Read more.

NO LONGER SURPRISING STORY #5

Islamabad: May 19, 2010. (PCP) A Christian girl who was kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam has been reunited with her family after three years apart. Tina Barkat, now 28, was kidnapped by the family of her friend Sobia, who together with her uncle forced her to convert to Islam and marry one of their relatives, Qaiser.

Tina tried to escape from the family several times but says it was not until the security around her was relaxed following the birth of her second baby to Qaiser that she was able to escape.

She alleges that while she was forced to live with Qaiser and his family, his parents were very abusive towards her and her husband used to beat her.

She is now with her family and does not wish to return to her Muslim husband. His family have reacted by registering a case against Tina and her family.

Her father, Barkat Masih, an elder in his local church, was detained illegally by the police over the incident but was freed after CLAAS appealed to the high court.

He told CLAAS that the police did not help him when he went to them in a bid to secure Tina’s release. Instead of registering a kidnapping case against Sobia’s family, he says the police threatened him and told him not to come back to register a complaint again because his daughter had already converted to Islam and therefore had no further relationship with them - the custom in Pakistan when a person converts and marries into a Muslim family. Read more.

And what's the Muslim response? "Oh, David, we don't agree with any of this. Of course, these things don't bother us enough to actually do something about them, so the practices will continue. After all, we've got better things to do, like complain about cartoons. If you join Islam, David, you too can develop a completely warped sense of morality."

Jesus or Muhammad Today (Saturday) at 2:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)

We'll be having an episode of "Jesus or Muhammad" at 2:30 today. We'll be discussing some of the claims of Yusuf Estes (and, if we have time, we might start getting into some interesting things I've learned about the Muslim Debate Initiative). Be sure to tune in via satellite or online here.

Smiling in Our Faces, While Cursing Us in Their Hearts

Qur'an 3:28—Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.

Ibn Kathir on 3:28—Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''

Muslims Slaughter 70 of My People, Who Are Also Muslims

Chaudary/AP

70 worshipers were slaughtered today in Lahore, Pakistan, and the death toll is still growing. 1500 people had poured into their mosques this morning to pray and worship, and they were met with gunfire, grenades, and suicide bombers. Reports indicate that two militants detonated themselves during the assault. This coordinated attack, conducted at two separate sites, comes on Friday, the Muslim sabbath day.

The victims were Ahmadi Muslims, the sect of Islam in which I was born and raised. This minority Muslim sect is the target of relentless persecution. The Pakistani government itself has all but declared war on this minority, denying them any support and concocting laws to incarcerate and torture them. Persecution such as this is the very reason my entire family left Pakistan in the past few decades, although I have some distant relatives and a few close cousins who are there right now. As of yet, I have not heard if they are safe, and I'm anxiously awaiting news. This hits close to home for me, folks.

Allow me to give some brief background and commentary. Why are the Ahmadis so persecuted? Is it that they speak blasphemy against Allah? No, they worship Allah. Do they draw cartoons of Muhammad? No, they hold Muhammad in equally high reverence as other Muslims. Well, do they desecrate the Qur'an? No, they read it, recite it, and memorize it regularly with all the respect they can accord to it. In fact, when I was an Ahmadi, I was taught the Shahadah, all 6 Articles of Faith and all 5 Pillars of Islam exactly as all other Muslims have learned them.

So then why are the Ahmadis so persecuted? It has to do with their eschatological beliefs. Non-Ahmadi Muslims say Jesus is going to literally descend from heaven to initiate the end-times, whereas Ahmadis say Jesus was foretold to figuratively descend from heaven, and that his second coming has already happened in the person of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. When Mirza Ghulam Ahmad came, he taught the most peaceful interpretation of Islam imaginable, and Ahmadi Muslims hold to this set of teachings.

Non-Ahmadi Muslims are often infuriated at Ahmadi teachings because of the doctrine of Khatam-an-Nabiyeen, i.e. that Muhammad was the last prophet. Ahmadis respond by saying Ahmad is not a new prophet after Muhammad, but the expected second coming of Jesus.

That's about it, ladies and gentlemen! That's enough to send Muslims into a murderous frenzy against Ahmadis. In fact, the sixth President of Pakistan Zia-ul-Haq was recorded as having said the following:

"Ahmadis are heretics and they offend me. I have a sacred duty to Allah to rid Pakistan of these impostors. I intend to drive them out... Ordinance XX may violate human rights but I don't care."

During his regime, "he and members of his administration made numerous public speeches urging Pakistanis to seek out, expose and even to kill Ahmadis." Source

So the Muslim people at large in Pakistan, as well as the government itself, are actively engaged in persecuting, incarcerating, and killing Ahmadis. Whole blogs and media outlets have been dedicated to this persecution.

So what does this have to do with us? Well, you already know what it has to do with me, what does it have to do with you? 3 things.

1 - Act on behalf of the persecuted around the world! It is sick that so many people around the world are dying for their beliefs. Pray for their deliverance from murderous ideologies and militants, regardless of their creed or national allegiance. Speak up, whenever you get the chance, to defend the rights of the oppressed.

2 - Understand that Islam is not homogeneous. There are Muslims of many different kinds, and the ones you encounter can vary widely in their beliefs and practices, even if they are observant and devout.

3 - Stop the spread of mainstream Islamic theology before we suffer the same fate! For the Ahmadis whom I love, they have an unfortunate truth to grapple with: mainstream Islam is not peaceful! Though Ahmadis may espouse peace, they are in the minority. Mainstream Islam will take over governments and impose vicious, violent laws (have you read the history of Pakistan? It was set up as a nation to be run for and by Muslims.)

If this is what the Muslims are doing with people who love the Qur'an and love Muhammad, what do you think they are going to do with people like us if they gain a foothold in the West? We need to act now. Stand up for your freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom of expression.

The tide is coming, this is the time.

By the way, I just checked the death toll. It's rising.

*** UPDATE ***

I have heard word from my family; some of my distant relatives (whom I did not know) have been killed. The congregation at my parents' mosque is rife with mourning over the loss of loved ones.

This is the way Islam is, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake about it. From the very beginning, Muslims marched against Muslims and slaughtered each other. I'm not talking about power-mongers hundreds of years after Muhammad hijacking Islam for personal profit. I'm talking about Aisha, the wife of Muhammad, marching against Ali, Muhammad's closest cousin and one of the four rightly guided caliphs, just 24 years after Muhammad died. 50,000 Muslims met each other in battle that day, and 10,000 were slain. Muslims have been killing each other ever since.

Massacre, violence, and brutality from its very inception. This is the enemy we are fighting.

Ground Zero Imam, Founder of ASMA and Chairman of Cordoba Initiative: "I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue"

It appears that while the Imam of the Ground Zero Mosque is busy trying to put blinders over the eyes of Americans, he is showing his true colors to Arabic speakers.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative and Founder of ASMA, has been in the limelight for his proposal to build an Islamic Center 600 feet away from Ground Zero. When appeasing Western audiences, Abdul Rauf uses language drenched in pluralist, new-age, politically correct overtones. In his article for the New York Daily News, he has written:

My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists. We are the people who want to embolden the vast majority of Muslims who hate terrorism to stand up to the radical rhetoric. Our purpose is to interweave America's Muslim population into the mainstream society. ...

The center will have a public memorial to the victims of 9/11 as well as a meditation room where all will be welcome for quiet reflection. The center will support soul and body. ...

My work is to make sure mosques are not recruiting grounds for radicals. ...

What could be a better use for the citizens in lower Manhattan? What could be a better monument to the victims of that tragic day?

When speaking to Arabic audiences, however, the headlines read quite differently. Although I am not fluent in Arabic, I can read enough to know what this Arabic headline says: "The Greatest Imam of Mosques in New York (says): 'I Do Not Believe in Religious Dialogue.'"

Part of this Arabic article is translated here, and it reads:

Religious dialogue as customarily understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be remedied.

This very same "anti-terrorist" said the following on CBS less than 3 weeks after 9/11:

"(The 9/11 attacks were part of a larger Islamic) reaction against the U.S. government politically, where we (the U.S.) espouse principles of democracy and human rights, and (yet) where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries... United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened... because we (Americans) have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. ...In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” DiscovertheNetworks.org

Sounding less and less like the "anti-terrorist" we'd expect, Abdul Rauf has also been quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as having said:

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

In saying this, Abdul Rauf equates the British and American militaries to Christians warriors. The same article states:

"Imam Feisal... said there could be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. President gave an 'America Culpa' speech to the Muslim world."

It appears our newest neighborhood anti-terrorist has great wisdom to share for us about Islam, as well. According to the Huffington Post, he has said:

The Prophet Muhammad has been known as the first feminist. … Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief.

Now, Muhammad is the very man who said husbands can beat their wives, who said women are deficient in their minds, who has been recorded as striking his wife in her chest and causing her pain, who was the greatest polygamist in Islam, who said women lack common sense, who said Hell will be mostly inhabited by women, who endorsed raping of female captives, and who is single-handedly the greatest cause for underage marriages around the world. If Abdul Rauf thinks Muhammad is "the first feminist," no wonder he considers himself the anti-terrorist!

Who is this man, and what does he really believe? What are his true goals? With reason enough to question the motives of any man who might want to build a mosque on ground zero, he is held in high suspicion considering his remarks in the past and now his apparent two-faced pandering to media of different languages. Perhaps time will tell the truth about Feisal Abdul Rauf; for now, I have some strong reservations.

Oh, and by the way, Abdul Rauf has done "sensitivity training" for the FBI. Ironic, considering how insensitive he is to American sentiments.

Many quotations, references, and leads in this article were made possible due to PajamasMedia and DiscovertheNetworks.org.

*** UPDATE ***

Excellent report on Feisal Abdul Rauf by Robert Spencer, Debra Burlingame, and Sean Hannity

What Happens when Anarchy Meets a Muslim Majority?

Question: What happens when anarchy meets a Muslim majority?
Answer: You get the most dangerous city on Earth

Of Mosques and Men: Muslim Mindsets and a Supplement to David's Post

The Ground Zero Mosque is, in my mind, a clear affront to Western sensibilities and national pride. I have likened it to a German WWII Memorial being built right next to Auschwitz in Poland. It is similar indeed - Auschwitz was the Ground Zero of the holocaust. A monument to the Germans, built with a specific reference to the WWII tragedy, would be a fair parallel to building a Muslim monument with a clear reference to the 9/11 tragedy (let's not forget, they want to open the mosque on 9/11/2011). Although 9/11 pales in comparison to the holocaust in degree of torture and slaughter, its memory has a powerful effect in the heart of the American, as does the memory of the holocaust in the hearts of Jews.

I also agree with David, that Islam teaches taqiyya, and 3:28 is very clear in what it is saying: "Do not take non-Muslims as greater friends than Muslims - unless you do it to protect yourself", i.e. only be good friends with non-Muslims as a deceptive means of self-preservation. That verse is mubeen.

Correct theology aside, let us not forget that the average Western Muslim does not follow the Qur'an in its entirety! Practically speaking, when we converse with Muslims and share the Gospel with them (which is the ultimate purpose of this blog), we will do so knowledgeably and appropriately. We will know, for the most part, Western Muslims have been affected by Western standards of peace and morality, and thus do not take the Qur'an seriously when it says things like 3:28.

It is important, therefore, to understand what is going on in the minds of the Muslims we encounter in the West. All I can share with a high degree of certainty in that regard is what my own mindset was when I was a Muslim. So I will speak to that.

In 2002, in the aftermath of September 11th, I showed David three pictures from an email:

When I showed those pictures to David, I didn't find them funny because I meant to say "Americans are getting killed and this is hilarious!" If that were the case, why would I have sent them on to an American? I honestly just thought "These are funny pictures - I should show these to my buddy".

To be explicit, David has said "There was something in Nabeel that allowed him to smile when there were terrorist attacks", linking the smiling to the terrorist attacks. Neither I, nor any Muslim I knew intimately, thought the terrorist attacks themselves were any cause for smiling.

The question remains, why did I think the pictures were funny? As many Western Muslim were, I was dealing with the tragedy through humor. The question is: why would Muslims laugh at this situation? As David has said, "People who dealt with 9/11 through humor made fun of the terrorists, they didn't joke about terrorist attacks clearing the way for a new Mecca."

This is where it's important to understand the Western Muslim mindset.

Muslim Westerners don't see terrorists the same way non-Muslim Westerners do. When I was a Muslim I saw these terrorists as people, boys for the most part, who have been brainwashed and misled by bloodthirsty mullahs and imams. For the sake of fighting oppression and freeing their families from miserable circumstances, they offered up their lives. They are willing to die for what they believe in, and to offer their loved ones a chance at better lives. That is how I saw them: sincere but misled young men who have been used by evil.

It is a sick and sad state of affairs, and though their actions are utterly evil, the terrorists themselves aren't evil incarnate as we would often portray them. The West has a tendency to dehumanize their enemies (all people do), and we have done it with the terrorists as well. Just look at the term "terrorist" - it takes all the humanity out of a person and replaces it with evil.

Muslim Westerners are closer to these terrorists on the familial spectrum than non-Muslim Westerners, and so they are not as prone to dehumanizing them. Therefore, they are less likely to make fun of them. How do Western Muslims, therefore, deal with 9/11 if they are going to use humor? By laughing at the situation (i.e. neither the victims nor the terrorists). What I, and the Muslims around me, were laughing at when we saw those photos was more along these lines: "Well, at least people are talking about Islam now - perhaps this will open the door for Islam to spread throughout the West."

And herein is truth: Virtually every Muslim I've ever known believes that Islam should and will conquer the world. Some Muslims, like the sect of Islam I was in, believed it should be through peaceful means - that people would convert when they hear the message of Islam. Honestly, I think we were in the minority. Other Muslims I know believe it will be by whatever means necessary, peaceful first and then violent if it comes to that.

One other thing I wish to point out regarding Western Muslims and America: most of the Muslims in the West either moved from Muslim nations or are born of those who came from Muslim nations. Being in a Muslim nation generally gets you to have a love-hate relationship with America: you'd love to be in America, but you hate it for what it's doing to your brothers in the middle east. Once you then move to America, you have a vested interest in it, but often still long for the day Islam will take over America so that you will no longer have to be torn in your loyalties. Those born in America often have these sentiments passed on to them from their parents, though diminished in strength.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I have observed this to be true: Most Muslims I know do have some underlying resentment towards America, regardless of whether they are American citizens. This is certainly less frequently the case for American born Muslims than for naturalized immigrants, but I have observed it quite frequently in both groups.

To summarize my point for all practical purposes, I don't think it would be good for us to be afraid of making friends with Muslims - not all Muslims live by 3:28. The sheer fact that David was my best friend when I was a Muslim shows that to be true. I would even say that most Muslims in the West don't live by 3:28 - they make friends with all kinds of other people, and they are sincere in doing so.

But the fact that they are not living by the teachings of Islam doesn't then, in turn, make Islam peaceful. They are ignoring the more hateful and deceptive teachings, which the Qur'an does explicitly command. It is this set of hateful, deceptive, and false teachings that we are fighting against.

P.S. I still laugh at photos like these, although this is slightly more scary:

Of Mosques and Men: Reflections on the Ground Zero Mosque

Qur'an 3:28—Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.

Ibn Kathir on 3:28—Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''

Qur'an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Qur'an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and the idolaters, will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein. They are the worst of creatures.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim 33—It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2787—Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Case into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2795—Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s cause).”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e., Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah’s Cause.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3138—Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari said: “A Bedouin came to the Messenger of Allah and said: ‘A man fights for fame, or he fights for the spoils of war, or he fights to show off. Who is the one who is fighting in the cause of Allah?’ He said: ‘The one who fights so that the word of Allah will be supreme is the one who is fighting in the cause of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime.’”

Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency.”

Sahih Muslim 4366—It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Abu Hurayra reported that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”

Ibn Hazm on the Pact of Umar—These are the Rules and Regulations that were imposed by ‘Umar ibn-al-Khattab on the Christians of Syria, after conquering their land. The purpose of these rules was to make them submissive and contemptible. Christians were in no way to exhibit any sign of their unbelief, or anything forbidden in Islam; since Allah, the supremely Glorified and Honored, had said:

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.” (Qur'an 8:39, Pickthall)

. . . “[The Christians] are forbidden to build churches, or monasteries, in their cities or nearby areas. They are not allowed to renovate such buildings. They must allow any Muslim to lodge in these buildings for three nights, and provide him with food. They must never shelter a spy, nor show any duplicity to Muslims. They are not to teach their children the Qur’an. They must not display any sign of their unbelief, or forbid their relatives from converting freely to Islam. Furthermore, they must show reverence to Muslims, and give them pride of place at their assemblies. They should avoid appearing like Muslims in their clothing, their head covers, their shoes, and the parting of their hair. They must not speak the language of Muslims, nor use their names. They are not allowed to use a saddle on a beast of burden, nor bear a sword, nor any other weapon. Their rings must not bear any Arabic inscriptions. They must refrain from selling wine. They must have the front of their hair cut, and wear their own kind of clothing all the time, and must use belts. They are not to display a cross or any of their books, as they are passing Muslims on their way. Their dead must not be buried nearby a Muslim cemetery. They should not ring their bells in a loud manner; equally, they must not raise their voices while reading their Scriptures in their churches. They are forbidden to parade their palm branches. Now should Christians ever deviate from obeying these rules, Muslims would cease to honor the covenant that had protected them. In that case, Muslims can deal with them as if they have become people of discord and trouble.”

Poem by Nessrriinn: "Sharia Law . . . Again . . ."

I've noticed that the more artistic the criticism of Islam, the more upset Muslims get. If someone writes a book arguing that Islam is false, not much problem. If some draws a cartoon or writes a work of fiction portraying Islam in a negative light, we suddenly see signs that read "Death to Those Who Insult Muhammad!"

This goes back to the time of Muhammad, when poets like Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan were brutally murdered for composing poems about Islam.

Thus, I'm interested in seeing what the Muslim reaction will be to the thoughtful poems of this talented critic of Islam.

Most Common Baby-Boy Name in London

Is it Jack? Thomas? Daniel? Nope - gone are those days. Now it's "Mohammed". In fact, when you add up all the various ways of spelling the prophet's name, it is more than twice as popular as the next name, Daniel.

By the way, London isn't the only European capital to have "Mohammed" as the highest ranking name. There's also: Copenhagen, Oslo, Amsterdam, and Brussels.

Does this necessitate any conclusion about a gradual Muslim takeover of Europe? No. Does it point strongly in that direction? Yes.

Read the full article here

More Hypocrisy from Muslim Protesters

In many Muslim countries, non-Muslims are forced to obey Islamic laws. I never hear Muslims saying, "Hey! Who are we to tell other people how to live their lives?" But watch what happens when a Western nation says, "Muslims, we've got a law that you have to follow." Suddenly, it's wrong to impose laws on people who don't like them. (And notice more cases of Misdirected Rage Syndrome. "Belgium is outlawing the burka. Death to America!")

Nazia Quazi Released from Saudi Arabia

A Canadian student held captive for three years in Saudi Arabia under the kingdom's controversial ''guardianship'' laws has been allowed to leave and marry her fiance after she issued a desperate online plea for help.

In a story that gripped newspaper readers on two continents, Nazia Quazi - a Canadian of Indian Muslim origin - fell in love with a fellow student, Bjorn Singhal, who was born to a partly Hindu family.

To prevent them marrying, her father used his power under the Saudi legal code to stop her leaving the country after she went on a visit. But following a campaign by supporters in Canada that was taken up by the media there and even in Saudi newspapers, he has now relented. He allowed the marriage to take place in Dubai last Tuesday.

''I still can't believe it,'' Ms Quazi, 24, told reporters after the wedding. ''I keep pinching myself and I keep pinching him.''

Despite attempts to reform the system by the current monarch, King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia still has the most conservative attitudes towards women of any country in the world.

All women, even the growing number of high-powered business executives, must conform to the wishes of their nearest male relative, usually a husband, father or brother, for all practical aspects of life. Read More.

Rick Barber Runs for Congress--The Spiral Begins

Several U.S. citizens are running for office on a "Quit Being Soft on Islam" platform. Consider Rick Barber's new commercial.



Western nations are understandably sick of politicians bowing to Islam. When a U.S. soldier opens fire on his own soldiers, shouting "Allahu Akbar," and the government won't even consider the possibility that the attack was motivated by his Islamic faith, people take note. Americans, the media, and the government have tried, with every ounce of strength, to view Islam in a positive light, despite the violence, oppression, rapes, acid attacks, wife-beating, and honor killings we hear about constantly. But the dam of Western tolerance is starting to crack. And yet many Muslims continue to do the very things that are causing concern among non-Muslims. This is leading, inevitably, to a spiral. The steps are as follows:

(1) Before the next elections, Muslims will launch several more terrorist attacks, possibly even here in the U.S.
(2) Sickened by the apathy of Western political leaders, citizens will elect officials who promise to get tough on terrorism.
(3) Outraged that Westerners would think of becoming more aggressive towards Islamic imperialism, many Muslims will become even more hostile towards the West, leading to further terrorist attacks.
(4) Concerned about the increase in terrorist attacks, citizens will elect officials who promise to get even tougher on terrorism.
(5) Muslims will be outraged even more, which will lead to additional terrorist attacks.
(6) And so on.

At some point in this process, I suspect that one of the major news channels will stop defending Islam and submitting to organizations like CAIR. They will begin turning to Muslim sources to explain Muslim violence. Citizens will be elated that someone is finally telling the truth about Islam, and the channel's ratings will go through the roof. In order to survive, the other news channels will also start pointing a finger at Islamic teachings.

The new knowledge of Islam will cause massive concern about Muhammad's teachings, and an even stronger desire to confront it. This, of course, will outrage Muslims, who will call for more violence in response. Events like "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" will become more and more common, giving rise to more and more Muslim outbursts.

Unless something changes, the spiral won't stop until one of the sides collapses. Most people (including me) don't want to see this, but that's just where we're headed. What are Muslims doing to stop the spiral? Getting angry over cartoons?

Remember, my Muslim friends, that we live in a democracy. The actions of political leaders are strongly influenced by the will of the people. If Muslims upset enough Westerners, those Westerners will eventually take action. And for those Muslims who think that the Muslim world is strong enough to win a victory over the West, a quick history lesson is in order. Muslim nations have repeatedly joined forces to attack Israel, and have repeatedly been crushed by a very tiny nation. Hundreds of millions of Muslims detest a few million Jews, and yet are powerless to defeat them. What would happen if the entire Western world decided that the West will no longer put up with Islamic attempts to conquer the world?

Now is not the time to build mosques at Ground Zero. Now is not the time to throw tantrums over cartoons. Now is not the time to call for the destruction of Israel. This is the time when Muslims need to show the West that they believe in peace (real peace, not Islamic peace) and justice (real justice, not Islamic justice), that they have more to contribute to the world than honor killings and acid attacks, and that there are more important things to Muslims than the scribbles of a twelve year old. If Muslims continue to care more about cartoons than about women who are being kidnapped, raped, and forced to convert to Islam; if Muslims keep demanding concessions from Western nations while turning a blind eye towards the horrific oppression of non-Muslims in Muslim lands; if Muslims can't come up with a better way of dealing with problems than perpetual violence--I don't foresee a positive end to this spiral.

The ball is in your court, my Muslim friends. The calls for minaret-bans and burka-bans in Europe did not begin in a void. The soaring popularity of politicians like Geert Wilders is no coincidence. People are getting fed up. You can either show them that they are wrong, or you can continue trying their patience. The choice is yours.

All of the June Debates Are On!

Sheikh Awal hasn't made an official decision on whether to debate me or not. He said he will give me an answer later this week. However, the debates will go forward one way or another. If Sheikh Awal decides not to debate (and he is under no obligation to take part in debates he doesn't want to take part in), Osama Abdallah has agreed to step in. I know some of the readers here (this means you Bartimaeus!) aren't fans of Osama due to his comments on this blog; nevertheless, I've never had a problem with Osama in person. Hence, while I would love to debate Sheikh Awal since I have not debated him previously, I appreciate Osama's willingness to see the debates go forward one way or another.

On a different note, Ministry to Muslims is conducting training on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (June 16th-18th). Sam, Tony Costa, and I will be doing the training. Let us know if you're interested in attending.

Jesus or Muhammad Today (Saturday) at 2:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)

We'll be having an episode of "Jesus or Muhammad" at 2:30 today. Anyone interested in discussing the cartoon controversy? (We're trying to have some afternoon episodes for people in radically different time zones). Be sure to tune in via satellite or online here

The Next 10 Years of Free Speech in a 10 Minute Microcosm

I'm calling it now. Unless we actually stand up for free speech and enforce it, we will see this 10 minute video played out in our lives over the next 10 years.

*Note: Some of the images in this video are mildly offensive, and the language used by the Muslims is filthy. You may have to sign into YouTube to watch this.

1 - Lars Vilks attempts to show a film (yes, it was offensive; no, it wasn't pornography)

2 - 20 seconds into the film, a Muslim yells "Stop the Film!"

3 - 8 seconds later, some kid flies over the desk and attacks Vilks

4- All chaos breaks loose, greeted by Muslims cheering "Allahu Akbar!"

5 - At the 3:55 mark, a man says "I said 'stop the film', and you didn't stop it!"

6 - Muslims greet this by cheering "Muhammad! Muhammad!"

7 - At 5 minutes, the man is still asking "Why didn't you stop the film?" to which the cop responds "I'll explain that later"

8 - At 5:20, the Muslims start saying "We pay taxes, Sweden is our country, why didn't you stop the film? If you stopped the film, this wouldn't have happened!"

9 - At the 6 minute mark, Muslims start saying to security "If you draw your gun, we'll report you!" People continue yelling insults and being aggressive towards the security.

10 - At the 7:20 mark, the first and only rational Muslim voice speaks up and says "No aggression towards the police, respect the cops, they are here to do their jobs.

11 - At the 8:45 mark, an official gets up and says they will stop showing the film due to security reasons.

12 - Muslims burst into celebration over their victory

13 - At 9:15, a lone voice speaks up and says to the crowd that they are compromising free speech

14 - Immediately, the Muslim crowd is riled up in anger over this proclamation

15 - Everyone is dismissed

16 - People exit the room amidst chants of the Shahada.

I want to call your attention to some of the things that happened here. First, note how the Muslim man in the audience think his voice is enough to dictate what everyone else does. He thinks simply by saying "Stop the film!" the whole auditorium should fall in line with his sentiment. This is exactly what we see in the world; a handful of Muslims would seek to change the practices of a nation, and they really feel like it's their God-given right, completely ignoring the fact that their whims are not any more important than anyone else's.

Then, violence and chaos break out, and the Muslims are ecstatic that they were able to interrupt the film by one means or another. This is what happened with the Danish cartoonists a few years ago, it's what is happened with Theo Van Gogh, it's what they're trying to do to Molly Norris, and it's what they're doing to Lars Vilks.

Not too long after, the Muslims start saying "This is our country - you must listen to us!" Yes, you've come to the country, but as long as you keep fighting the principles it stands for (i.e. free speech), then it's not your country. No one there should listen to you.

Another scary parallel, the Muslims then say "If you had listened to us", that is, if the security had appeased them by caving in and cutting off the film, "If you had listened to us, this wouldn't have happened!" Notice, the Muslims are blaming their insufferable actions of violence and chaosmongering on someone else, namely security. They know what they've done is bad, they just transpose the blame onto someone else. That's exactly how the Muslim world intimidates others into changing their behavior: "If you don't change, the death of those who receive our wrath will be your fault!" It's like they're the school bullies, pushing people around to boost their egos and their power.

Then, to further bully the security, a man says "If you draw your gun, I'll report you!" Notice again how blame is being shifted on others, people who are trying to keep the peace. That is exactly what happens when I, or David, or any other poster on this blog tries to point out what the Muslims are doing. The Muslims respond by saying we are the ones to blame! The same goes for Geert Wilders, Pam Geller, Robert Spencer, and anyone who tries to stand in the way of Muslims who go too far - they all get called out as if they are the bad guys.

Then, when everything is thoroughly out of hand, one Muslim stands up and defends what is right. I applaud him for doing so, but let no one think he represents the majority. The same happens in the world around us - when Muslims are going bonkers all around the world over Facebook, Nazam will say "But look at those who aren't!" or when riots and flag-burnings are happening around the world, a small Muslim contingency will stand and say "We should be peaceful!" It's a perfect parallel - yes, I'm glad there are those who are civil, but wake up and realize that you are not the ones steering the boat that is the modern Islamic movement!

Finally, after the violence and a great deal of chaos, security capitulates to the demands of the Muslims. The Muslims are ecstatic over the death of free speech and the victory of their own whims. When someone tries to defend free speech, her message is thwarted instantly. I tell you, if 20 people had stood up with her and demanded that the film be played, it would have.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is what's happening in our world. Muslims are changing what can and can't be said, free speech is dying, they are applauding, and we are sitting by and doing nothing. Let us stand, all of us, on the side of free speech, before we lose it. And lose it we will, amidst cheers of "La Illaha Il-Allah", unless we take a stand now.

Woman Openly Declares She Would "Slaughter Lars Vilks Like a Lamb"

Is it just me, or has the world gone topsy turvy when a woman who declares intentions of 1st degree murder is perfectly safe, but a man who does nothing more than draw cartoons is on the brink of death?


In other news, he also depicts Jesus as a pedophile. I don't like it, I consider it blasphemy, and I, consequently, am not too fond of Vilks. But you wont hear me, or probably any Christian for that matter, calling for his death. I wonder why...

Molly Norris Receives Death Threats for "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"

"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" was proposed by Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris. She almost immediately changed her mind, however, and has fought against the event ever since. (Check out her support for the Muslim position on her website.) She even visited a mosque and has spent time with Muslims as a sign of her repentance. Yet this isn't enough. Because of her involvement, she is still a target.

Pictures of Muslim Facebook Protests

Today, Muslims the world over are protesting free speech. I mean Facebook. I'm not going to comment much, except to say: wow. Muslim outrage is rather misplaced and misguided. Hey, I have an idea: how about you guys just not go to the facebook page? No one's forcing you to look at it. I guess this whole freedom thing must be a bit confusing for those who don't have it.

I'm particularly impressed by the photo of Muslims burning the Norwegian flag because they were upset at Danish cartoons. Amidst this flurry of protests, the Swedish embassy in Pakistan had to close for security reasons. If we can just get Finland involved, we'll have the whole Scandinavian Peninsula.

Without further ado, here are the photos:

I'm glad they aren't pretending to fight for "tolerance"

The green signs all say "Muhammad" (notice the lack of drawings)

I have problems with my participles, too. Must be a Pakistani thing.

Although we can't read the whole sign on the right, notice it's a call for shame on the West (not just Facebook). Can it be more clear that they're angry about free speech?

*Guy who's pointing*: "The blue stripe down the middle of this Danish flag looks real nice"

Notice the thinly veiled threats (with the word LOVE in caps right underneath)

Wow - that's a lot of people. Certainly more people than showed up at this protest.

Threats of boycott against... Facebook products. Yes, let's all stop giving Facebook our money - that'll show 'em.

Photos courtesy of the Associated Press.

Muslims Boycotting Free Speech

I'm not one to jump to conclusions. Contrary to popular belief, I tend to question almost everything, preferring to remain without a conclusion until I'm virtually certain about an issue. This tendency has hurt me in the past, but my cautious skepticism is something that has mostly served me well. In other words, I tend to avoid premature conclusions by establishing a threshold of certainty before making a conclusion.

But when it comes to Muslims and free speech, we've blasted that threshold out of the water. We've seen an inordinate number of Muslim attempts at stifling free speech. We've seen Muslim nations attempting to limit free speech through the UN. We've seen news crews getting attacked. Again. And again. We've seen Muslims demanding the removal of peaceful messages. We've seen Muslims attacking cartoonists and committing arson against their homes. We've seen Muslims threatening cartoonists. We've seen Muslims attempting to kill cartoonists. We've seen Muslims killing video directors. We've seen Muslim desires to assassinate authors. Again. And again. And again, and again, and again. We've seen Muslims censoring debates. We've seen Muslims advocating Jihad against websites. We've seen websites bowing to the death threats. We've seen YouTubers forced to remove videos because of death threats. Even David and Sam received a death threat by a Muslim for simply "preaching" about Muhammad and Jesus. David and I posted a blog about this phenomenon in London last summer, and we were certainly victims of it last June in Dearborn. Recently, we've seen Yahya Snow attempt to boycott dialogue with David because of David's defense of free speech. And now, we see Pakistan boycotting Facebook because of the same stance: an adamant refusal to give up free speech.

Since the last occurrence is quite recent and has not been introduced yet on this blog, here's a snippet from the Guardian:

Image taken from MSNBC

Pakistan today blocked Facebook indefinitely in response to public outrage over a competition on the social networking site that encourages people to post drawings of the prophet Muhammad.

The Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, which controls internet access, directed service providers to block the website "till further notice" in compliance with a high court order obtained by a group of lawyers yesterday.

The court action was triggered by a Facebook page entitled Everybody Draw Mohammad Day -- May 20 which contains over 200 images, many of them certain to offend Muslims, who consider all depictions of the prophet to be blasphemous...

The page says its objective is to encourage the "free discussion of brutality of the radical aspects of Islam" and invites members to submit drawings of the prophet Muhammad by tomorrow .

Let me be the first (actually, I'm definitely not the first) to say that I find many of these drawings gratuitously offensive. I can see how many would be offended by them. But herein lies the point: the right to free speech trumps the "right" to not be offended. Free speech is what secures the pursuit of truth, liberty, and justice. Yes, this means that people can be offended. But freedom from offense is in no way more valuable than the guarantee of truth, liberty, and justice.

Unfortunately, Muslims generally cannot handle being offended. They are intolerant of those who criticize them. Can it be any more clear that the intolerance does not lie with the critics, rather it lies with those who call for the death of critics? This is why it was no surprise when a government panel revealed that the majority of nations that are least tolerant of others' religions are mostly comprised of Muslims. And though they exemplify intolerance abroad, they demand tolerance in the West, all the while redefining tolerance as privileged status.

The verdict is in: Muslims respond to criticism with intolerance and censorship, often violent. Of course, this does not apply to all Muslims, but an alarmingly high number.

I'm waiting for the day when the West will awaken and realize that criticism is not intolerance, but censorship and violent reactions are.

***UPDATE***

We couldn't make this stuff up, folks! Less than 12 hours after writing the above post, Pakistan has banned YouTube and 450 other websites, citing offensive material. Businessweek writes:

Pakistan, home to the world’s second- largest Muslim population, blocked Google Inc.’s YouTube service and more than 450 web links as the government widened a crackdown on Internet material deemed as blasphemous.

The sites were blocked because of the increasing level of sacrilegious and derogatory material, the Islamabad-based Pakistan Telecommunication Authority said in a statement today. The regulator, which shut access to Facebook Inc.’s website yesterday, may block other sites with blasphemous content, said Khurram Mehran, a spokesman at the regulator.

Of course, this is mainly in response to the "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day" facebook page, whose creator writes:

“We simply want to show the extremists that threaten to harm people because of their Mohammed depictions, that we’re not afraid of them,” according to the Facebook description page. “They can’t take away our right to freedom of speech by trying to scare us to silence.

Well said. If anyone wishes to argue that Pakistan is just looking after the moral well-being of their nation, please address the fact that Pakistan is the country that leads all others in searching for the term "sex", according to the New York Times. That they lead all others in looking up "Danish Cartoons" is interesting, too.