Thursday, September 30, 2010

Loving Muslims, Challenging Islam: A Response to Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly

The City of Dearborn came after us with everything they had. There were no rules for them. Integrity was not a concern. Now that they failed in their malicious prosecution, the city has continued its campaign of slander and libel. Dearborn Mayor John O'Reilly summed up their claims about us nicely in the Detroit Free Press:

"It's really about a hatred of Muslims. That is what the whole heart of this is. ... Their idea is that there is no place for Muslims in America. They fail to understand the Constitution."

Based on the one-sided coverage of the Detroit Free Press, it's obvious that the City of Dearborn has a major media outlet in its pocket. Oh well. We've got YouTube!

Monday, September 27, 2010

Thomas More Law Center Announces Impending Civil Suit against Dearborn

For all those who've been asking, yes, a civil suit will be filed against the City of Dearborn for violating our Constitutional rights. The sad part is that this could have been avoided. If police had respected our rights at the festival, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit. If the city had apologized after arresting us, acknowledging their wrong, I doubt any of us would have been interested in a lawsuit. (We were assaulted by multiple security guards last year, and we never pursued a lawsuit.) But instead of acknowledging their wrong and apologizing, the City of Dearborn declared war on us, blasting us with an endless supply of libelous accusations (read the Mayor's letter), sending an obsessed prosecutor against us (who assured us in court that "it's not personal"), bringing multiple liars (e.g. Roger Williams and Corporal Kapanowski) to the stand to bear false witness against us, and ultimately convicting Negeen because Judge Mark Somers seems to think it's perfectly acceptable for police officers to manhandle a teenage girl who hadn't even been accused of a crime. Yes, we're finally ticked off, and during the trial, our resolve to seek justice was solidified. We're happy that the Thomas More Law Center has decided to move forward with a civil case.

A jury on Friday acquitted four Christian missionaries accused of breaching the peace at the Dearborn International Arab Festival in June, but their attorney says the legal battle is far from over.

Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center plans to file a civil lawsuit on their behalf against the City of Dearborn "in short order," he said this morning on WJR-AM 760.

"They spent a night in jail for doing nothing but attending an Arab festival and daring to discuss their faith," he told host Frank Beckmann. "That can't happen in the United States."

Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad previously explained the evangelists "caused a stir" at the festival, and a police report indicated one of the missionaries was "screaming into the crowd" leading officers to arrest the group "to gain control of the situation and avoid a possible riotous crowd."

But the missionaries -- members of the Act 17 Apologetics group, which openly claims Islam is a false religion -- video recorded their interactions at the festival, evidence Muise said convinced the jury they did nothing to provoke a confrontation. Read More.

***NOTE*** Since I am commenting on legal matters, I want to make it perfectly clear that my comments and thoughts here are my own, based on my observations at our trial and the legal motions I have read. I have not consulted anyone else in writing this blog post. Any concerns about my comments should therefore be directed towards me.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Does Dearborn Mayor John C. O'Reilly Approve of Stoning Women to Death?

Our position with respect to Islam and Muslims has always been clear. We love Muslims and want the best for them. We believe in peacefully sharing the Gospel. If Muslims reject the Gospel, that's up to them. Muslims are welcome in America, and their rights should be protected just as much as our rights should be protected.

We also believe that Islam is false, and that the imposition of Sharia is extremely dangerous in any society. We believe in challenging false claims, through public debate, private discussions, online videos, blog posts, and television and radio broadcasts.

It should be obvious to anyone that there is no contradiction between (1) loving Muslims, and (2) criticizing Islam. If one of my children were to convert to Islam, I would challenge his beliefs. But such a conversion would have no effect whatsoever on how much I love my child.

Mayor John C. O'Reilly doesn't seem to get the point here. Since Acts 17 challenges Islam, he claims that we're bigots. Regarding our activities in Dearborn, Mayor O'Reilly says:

"It's really about a hatred of Muslims. That is what the whole heart of this is. ... Their idea is that there is no place for Muslims in America. They fail to understand the Constitution."

But when have we ever said that we hate Muslims? Haven't we always and unconditionally proclaimed our love for Muslims? And how does Mayor O'Reilly equate (1) "We must not allow Sharia to take hold in the West," with (2) "There's no place for Muslims in America"?

One would expect more from a public official such as Mayor O'Reilly. But I think he's gotten himself into trouble on this one. I have a simple question for Mayor O'Reilly. Does he approve of the public stoning of women? Does he approve of the penalty suffered by the woman in the following video? (Note: This is extremely graphic. Do not watch it unless you really need to know what a public stoning is like.)



So does Mayor O'Reilly approve? If not, what would he say to a Muslim in the U.S. who decides to stone a woman for adultery? If the Mayor objects, then it seems he's against Sharia, which, according to his thinking, would make him an anti-Muslim, Islamophobic, hate-filled bigot. Since the Mayor doesn't want to be a bigot, it seems he isn't free to object to Islamic penalties such as stoning. Hence, when Muslims try to impose Sharia, Mayor O'Reilly must either approve, or turn a blind eye towards what's going on.

Anyone care to guess why Dearborn elected Mayor O'Reilly? Is it surprising that Mayor O'Reilly approved of our arrests? Is anyone shocked that Negeen was convicted of a crime for thinking that she had Constitutional rights in a city run by Mayor O'Reilly?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Blunder of Dearborn Judge Mark Somers Gets Negeen Mayel Convicted

*****Click here for a complete summary of our experience in Dearborn.*****

Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla, Negeen Mayel, and I were all charged with “Breach of Peace.” All four of us were found “not guilty,” due to indisputable video footage showing that we did nothing that would qualify as disturbing the peace.

However, Negeen was found guilty of “Failure to Obey a Police Officer’s Direction or Order,” which is defined as follows:

“Any individual who is given direction or order by hand, voice, emergency light, siren, or other visual or audible signal by a police officer acting in the lawful performance of his duty, and who willfully disobeys and/or disregards that direction or order, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Notice the word “lawful.” A police officer can’t order someone to do something unless the force of the law is behind him. An officer can’t order you to wash his car. He can’t order you to stop preaching. He can’t order you to take off your clothes. We have rights in the United States of America.

But there are circumstances where police can issue orders to citizens. If an officer has “probable cause” (“reasonable cause to believe a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 92 days or a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe the person committed it”), he can detain a person, arrest a person, etc.

The question, then, is whether police had probable cause when they approached Negeen, surrounded her on three sides (by six people), ordered her to stop filming, ordered her not to walk away, grabbed her, seized her camera, dragged her out of the tent, and later threw her in a jail cell.

This issue came before Dearborn Judge Mark W. Somers, who decided before our trial that the officer indeed had probable cause against Negeen. He reasoned that, since there had been a complaint by Roger Williams, police had reason to believe that Negeen had committed a crime.

There’s just one problem here. Negeen wasn’t accused of committing a crime. Williams simply complained that Negeen was “filming within hearing distance” when Paul, Nabeel, and I supposedly surrounded him and harassed him (click here to see what actually happened). Is it a crime to film someone in public? Not at all. Thus, while three of us were accused of committing a crime, Negeen was not.

Interestingly, during the trial, our lawyer Robert Muise asked Corporal Brian Kapanowski (the officer who manhandled Negeen and charged her with two crimes for assuming that she had Constitutional rights) if the complaint of Roger Williams provided any basis for thinking that Negeen had committed a crime. Corporal Kapanowski responded in the negative, acknowledging that there is no law against filming someone in public.

What does this mean? It means that police had no right to detain Negeen, grab her, seize her property, drag her out of the tent, or take her to jail. If police didn’t have probable cause, Negeen was under no obligation to stop recording and was free to leave.

Why, then, wasn’t the charge immediately thrown out as soon as Corporal Kapanowski admitted that he didn’t have probable cause against Negeen? It’s simple. Judge Mark Somers had already ruled, prior to trial, that police did have probable cause against Negeen. This meant that, according to Judge Somers, Negeen was obligated to obey Kapanowski’s orders, even though she wasn’t (since, as officer Kapanowski acknowledged, there was no basis for thinking that she had committed a crime).

With such an absurd ruling in place, the jury found Negeen guilty. Judge Somers had ruled that Corporal Kapanowski had the right to issue orders to Negeen, and Negeen, in a frightened state, surrounded by six individuals (Corporal Kapanowski, Officer Smith, Arab Chamber of Commerce member Amal Alslami, festival volunteer Roger Williams, and two members of festival sponsor Access), didn’t immediately comply with the officer’s orders. (Note: Negeen didn’t want to turn off the camera because she knew that we had been assaulted numerous times last year by festival security. She wanted to continue filming for her own safety.)

Why was Negeen convicted of failing to obey the order of a police officer? She was convicted, not because she willfully disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer, but because a sloppy judge, by magical fiat, declared the officer’s unlawful order to be lawful.

If you’re wondering why a judge would do this, knowing that a little girl’s future hangs in the balance, the judge’s motivations became clear to us when he was sentencing Negeen. He spent several minutes praising police officers, and he told Negeen that, unless a police officer is hurting her, she should always obey his orders. (It seems, then, that if a police officer orders Negeen to wash his car, she must comply, so long as she is in Dearborn, subject to the whims of the Honorable Mark W. Somers).

Unlike Judge Somers, I have absolutely no respect for some of the police officers in Dearborn (among them, Police Chief Ronald Haddad, Sergeant Jeffrey Mrowka, and Corporal Brian Kapanowski). They have no respect for the rights of United States citizens, no respect for the Constitution, and absolutely no integrity. To refresh your mind as to what constitutes fine police work in Dearborn, you might want to again watch the video footage of Negeen’s arrest:



***NOTE*** Since I am making comments critical of a United States Judge, I want to make it perfectly clear that my comments and thoughts here are my own, based on my observations at our trial and the legal motions I have read. I have not consulted anyone else in writing this blog post. Any concerns about my comments should therefore be directed towards me.

State Rep. Tom McMillin on the Jury's Verdict

State Rep. Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills) had the following statement regarding the verdicts given in the trial of the four Christian missionaries arrested at the Dearborn Arab American Festival:

"Today in Dearborn, the jury got it mostly right in finding Paul, David and Nabeel innocent of disturbing the peace. The city of Dearborn, the Dearborn Police and especially the Dearborn Mayor owe them a huge apology immediately.

However the guilty decision for Negeen Mayel's charge of failure to obey a police officer is extremely disturbing to me. I met with the ACLU here in Michigan recently to make sure we had good laws protecting citizens' right to video police officers and their activity and they said we have the model for other states. But based on today's decision, it seems that police in Michigan can get cameras turned off before doing questionable things (like making an arrest that was just found to be bogus by the jury). And how did the police have the right to tell Negeen Mayel to turn off her video camera and how can he touch her....for what reason? The video she took made it clear the police stepped way out of bounds.

Now - for all this charade, the city of Dearborn needs to be dealt with firmly....unless they plan to try to secede from the union and have their own laws. This is the United States of America and we here in the USA have something called Freedom of Speech. Dearborn - get used to it!"

Friday, September 24, 2010

Praise God for the Bittersweet Victory in Dearborn

*****Click here for a complete summary of our experience in Dearborn.*****

Flags were at half-mast in Dearborn today when four out of five charges against the Dearborn Four were dropped. Defendants Qureshi, Wood, Rezkalla and Mayel were all found not guilty of their "Breach of Peace" charges, but defendant Mayel was found guilty of the charge "Willfully Disobeying the Lawful Order of a Police Officer." She was sentenced to one day of jail, which had already been served in June. The credit was applied, and all four were free to go. The judge sent them on their way saying "You are welcome in Dearborn." Clearly.

Even though the person who complained against Negeen, Roger Williams, was effectively shown to be a compulsive liar, and even though the police officer who arrested her admitted that she had done nothing illegal before he detained her for questioning, she was still found guilty. Is there no justice in Dearborn?

The trial process has been tasking in many ways. We've spent a week away from work, school, and our families. We've had a grueling week of preparing for court day after day, without break or diversion. And emotionally we are spent. But we've got so much to be thankful for.

First and foremost, thank you to all those who have supported and prayed for us throughout this ordeal. We saw prayers visibly answered, by God's grace. Negeen still needs your prayers, as the appeal process will be beginning shortly.

To our friends who flew to Dearborn to testify on our behalf, especially those who waited for a week in the hotel only to be told by the court that their testimony would not be allowed: we cannot thank you enough for your show of support and willingness to sacrifice for us. We only hope we can express our sincere gratitude as wonderfully as you have expressed your love.

To those who supported us financially: we could not have done it without you! When we came to Dearborn a week ago, we had hoped to be done with the trial by Wednesday. By Thursday morning, the prosecution was still not done presenting its case, and so the defense still hadn't started! Our expenditures skyrocketed because we had to unexpectedly extend our rental car, hotel rooms, and rearrange our flights. Your support has sustained us financially, and the love of Christ shines through your self-sacrificial attitudes. We cannot thank you enough!

Also, a million thanks go out to the Thomas More Law Center, without whom we would have been unable to defend ourselves from the persecution of the City of Dearborn. Robert Muise was not only our attorney and counsel, but he was fully invested in this issue with us, sharing our emotional burden and investing more time into the issue than even us. The way he approached the case, he might as well have been handcuffed and in jail with us 3 months ago. Truly our brother in Christ, we would have had to take pleas of guilty had it not been for him and his diligence.

And I guess I might as well thank the city of Dearborn. They have fueled in us a fire to see justice restored in this great nation, to expose corrupt police officers, to defend the rights of little Christian girls like Negeen Mayel, and to spread the Gospel no matter what the cost. Because of this city, the nation knows the danger of indifference to the spread of Islam, and the need for loving Christians to focus their efforts on sharing Christ with Muslims. So thank you, Dearborn, for waking up the nation.

We praise the Lord for our acquittals. We praise the Lord for Negeen's verdict of guilty; she shares the honor of falsely being found guilty with our Lord Jesus. And we praise the Lord for Negeen's anticipated appeal and acquittal. Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, praise the Lord!

Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever! Amen.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Allah Cannot Reveal Himself: 1More(ReasonNotToBe)Muslim

"Regarding your question, how can the Quran be the word of Allah if God didn't enter into the world, every Muslim would tell you that the Quran was revealed through Gabriel, no verse was revealed in a direct fashion." - 1moremuslim (see here)

Introduction

There are many reasons to reject the idea that the Qur’an is or even could be a revelation from God. The following will demonstrate at least one of those ways. Rather than show that the Qur’an is false when judged on the basis of external criteria that Muslims would, on the basis of the Qur’an, object to, such as the Bible, it will be shown that that the Qur’an cannot be a revelation from God on the basis of its own criteria. Simply put: If what the Qur’an says about Allah is true, then what the Qur’an says about itself cannot be true.

This line of reasoning can be illustrated by an appeal to a number of things the Qur’an says about Allah, but the following will confine itself to the mainstream Muslim view that Allah cannot enter into his creation.

Mainstream Islam

Sunni Islam has two schools of doctrine, the Ashari and the Maturidi, which, inspite of some differences, are in basic agreement as touching upon the following point.

According to mainstream Sunni Islam, the absoluteness and utter transcendence of the Allah of the Qur’an preclude the very possibility that he could enter into his (alleged) creation. Indeed, this is a foundational reason why Muslims object to the incarnation, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity entered into the world, was born of a woman and walked among us.

The idea that Allah cannot enter into his creation is believed to follow from a certain understanding of Allah’s transcendence, which, among other places, finds expression in the Aqida of Imam Abu Jafar al-Tahawi (239-321):


“38. He is beyond having limits placed on Him, or being restricted, or having parts or limbs. Nor is He contained by the six directions as all created things are.”

“51. He encompasses all things and that which is above it, and what He has created is incapable of encompassing Him.” (online source)


Christians also believe that nothing can contain God, but for them this does not mean that God is unable to enter into history, as He not only says that He is the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, the one whom heaven and even the highest heavens cannot contain, but He also says that He fills heaven and earth, without being limited by them, that He encamps around and dwells in the midst of His people, without being confined to any place, and even says that He is with those who are lowly and of a contrite heart. Moreover, God is also able to reveal Himself in a particular place at a particular time, such as the tabernacle, the temple, and the burning bush, without any of this negating or impinging upon His transcendence. But this is not how Muslims understand Allah’s transcendence. As Ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maliki said in his commentary on the hadith of descent found in Tirmidhi:


What we must believe is that Allah existed and nothing existed with Him; that He created all creation, including the Throne, without becoming indicatable through them, nor did a direction arise for Him because of them; that He does not become immanent, that He does not change, and that He does not move from one state to another. (Aridat al-ahwadhi 2:234-237, as cited in Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine, Beliefs, Vol 1, As-Sunnah Foundation of America, p. 155-156) (Emphasis mine)

The problems with the Muslim view are manifold. Two of them will be mentioned here.

First, if Allah cannot enter into creation, then he also cannot communicate directly with man. But this contradicts what is said many times over in the Qur’an, not the least of which can be seen in the story of Moses. Although this is not the main way the Qur’an says Allah’s revelation came to man, it is at least one of the ways he is said to have done so.

Also mention in the Book (the story of) Moses: For he was specially chosen, and he was a messenger and a prophet. And We called him from the right side of Mount (Sinai), and made Him draw near to Us, for mystic (converse). (Surah 19:51-52) (Emphasis mine)

Has the story of Moses reached thee? Behold, he saw a fire: so he said to his family, ‘Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; perhaps I can bring you some burning brand therefrom, or find some guidance at the fire.’ But when he came to the fire, a voice was heard: ‘O Moses! Verily I am thy Lord! Therefor (in My presence) put off thy shoes: thou art in the sacred valley Tuwa. I have chosen thee: Listen, then to the inspiration (sent to thee). Verily, I am Allah: there is no god but I: so serve thou Me (only), and establish regular prayer for celebrating My praise.” (Surah 20:9-14) (Emphasis mine)

Behold! Moses said to his family: ‘I perceive a fire; soon will I bring you from there some information, or I will bring you a burning brand to light our fuel, that ye may warm yourselves.’ But when he came to the (Fire), a voice was heard: ‘Blessed are those in the Fire and those around: and Glory to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. O Moses! Verily, I am Allah, the Exalted in Might, the Wise…” (Surah 27:7-9) [Yusuf Ali and others mistranslate the verse at this point. An accurate translation of verse 8 is provided by Sher Ali: "So when he came to it, he was called by a voice, `Blessed is he who is in the fire and also those around it, and glorified be ALLAH, the Lord of the worlds'".] (Emphasis mine)

When Moses had fulfilled the term, and was travelling with his family, he perceived a fire in the direction of Mount Tur. He said to his family: ‘Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; I hope to bring you from there some information, or a burning firebrand, that ye may warm yourselves. But when he came to the (Fire), a voice was heard from the right bank of the valley, from a tree in hallowed ground: O Moses! Verily I am Allah, the Lord of the Worlds”…(Surah 28:29-30) (Emphasis mine)

In spite of the above, mainstream Muslims maintain that those who say Allah appeared to Moses in the fire, that he spoke from the fire, that his words were heard coming from a certain direction, etc., are misinterpreting these verses. Granting this claim for the sake of argument, this leads us to a second and worse problem for the Muslim view. The main way it is alleged that Allah revealed his words to the prophets, particularly to Muhammad, is through the medium of the angel Gabriel. Supposedly this gets Muslims off the hook by suggesting that it is Gabriel rather than Allah who speaks to man. But given the claim that Allah cannot enter into creation, not only would it have been impossible for Allah to communicate directly with Moses, or anyone else before or after him; it would also be impossible for Allah to communicate with man indirectly, even through an angelic medium.

The reason for this should be readily apparent: if Allah cannot enter into creation in order to speak with man, then Allah also cannot enter into creation to speak with the angels (and the Jinn also could not sneak into his presence in order to eavesdrop on Allah’s conversations with the angels). Although angels may be thought of as a different and higher order of being than man, since they are still creatures the distance between them and Allah is no less infinite. If the infinite cannot communicate with the finite, if Allah cannot enter into creation, then no degree of difference between men and angels, both of whom are finite, can overcome the qualitative difference between Allah and creatures, which, according to Muslims, prevents the former from communicating with the latter. All of this means that, if Allah is as the Qur’an claims him to be, i.e. a being who cannot enter into his creation, then the Qur’an cannot be what it claims to be, i.e. a revelation from Allah.

Conclusion

Muslims can only get out of this by dropping the notion that God cannot be absolute and also enter into his creation, but then they would not only have to find some way to scale those teachings in the Qur’an and the hadith that led them to this belief in the first place, they would also then have to concede that the incarnation cannot be ruled out on the basis of this principle. The difficulty of such a feat for Islamic theology and exegesis and the costliness of this for the Muslim polemic against Christianity would be just as monumental as it is necessary.

MCMILLIN SUBMITS DISCHARGE NOTICE ON 'DEARBORN FOUR' RESOLUTION

State Rep. Tom McMillin today made a procedural move to try to get action on a resolution regarding the case of four Christians who were arrested at the Arab Festival in Dearborn for discussing religion with attendees.

McMillin introduced the measure in July condemning the City of Dearborn's assault on freedom of speech and calling on the attorney general's office to investigate the incident, but the House of Representatives has not considered it.

The four are currently standing trial in Dearborn after being arrested for disorderly conduct.

"These four Christians were exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech on public property and they were arrested for doing so," said McMillin, R-Rochester Hills. "Having attended a couple of the pre-trial hearings, it's clear to me that this has more to do with persecution of Christians than anything else."

Today, McMillin submitted a formal notice to discharge House Resolution 313 from the House Judiciary Committee. Source.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Pastor Speaks the Truth about Islam

... and yet he has to defend himself from being called "uninformed, unchristian, and unamerican." Are they ever going to give up playing the "You're a bigot!" card whenever someone speaks the truth about Islam?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Trial Begins Monday--Support Needed

Paul, Nabeel, Negeen, and I will stand trial next week on charges of "breach of peace" (and, in Negeen's case, "failure to obey the lawful order of a police officer"). Those of you who have been following the case know what we're up against. Roger Williams lied about us. Amal Alslami lied about us. Corporal Brian Kapanowski lied about us. Sergeant Jeffrey Mrowka lied about us. Even the mayor lied about us. Despite the fact that our video footage proves our innocence, Dearborn prosecutor William DeBiasi is still coming after us. Please keep the trial in your prayers. It's apparently going to go on for four or five days. If you're in the Michigan area, the trial is open to the public. We'll also post daily updates here on the blog.

We need help covering our expenses (e.g. hotel costs, rental car, etc.). Please help if you can.

Public Schools Taking Kids on Trips to Mosques, Muslims Use Opportunity to Proselytize

Nothing to worry about here.

Nabeel Qureshi and Mufti Sulaiman Hashim: Who Is Jesus?

Nabeel and Mufti Sulaiman had this exchange last weekend when we were in California.

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Burqa Banned in France



I'm not sure what I think about this just yet, but France has solidly laid down their opinion. The vote passed their Senate 246 to 1, and will go into effect next Spring. Here is a snippet from CNN News:

The French senate approved Tuesday a law banning any veils that cover the face -- including the burqa, the full-body covering worn by some Muslim women -- making France the first European country to plan such a measure.
The law passed by a vote of 246 to 1, with about 100 abstentions coming essentially from left-leaning politicians.
The legislation was overwhelmingly approved by the lower house of parliament in July and will go into effect next spring.
French people back the ban by a margin of more than four to one, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found in a survey earlier this year.
Some 82 percent of people polled approved of a ban, while 17 percent disapproved. That was the widest support the Washington-based think tank found in any of the five countries it surveyed.
Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found.
A panel of French lawmakers recommended a ban last year, and lawmakers unanimously passed a non-binding resolution in May calling the full-face veil contrary to the laws of the nation.
"Given the damage it produces on those rules which allow the life in community, ensure the dignity of the person and equality between sexes, this practice, even if it is voluntary, cannot be tolerated in any public place," the French government said when it sent the measure to parliament in May.
The law imposes a fine of 150 euros ($190) and/or a citizenship course as punishment for wearing a face-covering veil. Forcing a woman to wear a niqab or a burqa will be punishable by a year in prison or a 15,000-euro ($19,000) fine, the government said, calling it "a new form of enslavement that the republic cannot accept on its soil." READ MORE

I'm going to withhold my opinion, and instead pose the questions to you: What ramifications do you think this has on French citizens? Do you think this is fair for the French Muslim woman who believes that donning a veil is necessary to adhere to God's law? Or do you think this is a necessary step to protect the securities of all Frenchmen? Or do you have another view?

I'd love to hear your opinions. I certainly think this is going to be a major issue in the near future, and it would be wise to be familiar this issue.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

A Timely Message

Since the prospective day is fast approaching, and since there is still time for Pastor Terry Jones to make the right decision, not to mention time for Muslims to reflect on the appropriate response they should make should Pastor Jones choose to plod on with his reckless idea, I wanted to draw attention to an article recently put up today at Answering Islam by Jochen Katz:

Please read it, and spread the word.

Burn the Quran Day is CANCELLED... Because Ground Zero Mosque is Being Moved?!?

Whoa... this could be about the awesomest thing I've heard all week! Burn the Qur'an Day is, according to USA Today, getting cancelled because Imam Rauf has agreed to move the Ground Zero Mosque!

He (Pastor Terry Jones) said he decided to cancel his protest because the leader of a planned Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its controversial location. READ MORE
If this is truly the case, then Terry Jones is a genius. If Imam Rauf is pulling a fast one on the Pastor from Florida, well, we'll just have to wait and see.

*UPDATE*

Reports are coming in that the developers of the Ground Zero Mosque are denying that the mosque will be moved. According to ABC News:

But as soon as Jones and al-Masri finished speaking, denials were issued that the Islamic community center and mosque would be moved away from its current controversial location.
"The Muslim Community Center called Park51 in Lower Manhattan is not being moved," read a statement from SoHo Properties, the developer of the community center that is being called the Ground Zero Mosque. READ MORE
As far as the American public goes, there's no telling what will happen. Let's pray while we're still waiting to see how all this will unfold.

*UPDATE 2*

Well, it looks like they got Pastor Jones. According to Yahoo News: "Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf said he was surprised by the announcement and that he would not barter." (Emphasis mine) It just remains to be seen whether Pastor Jones un-cancels "Burn the Qur'an Day". Then we can blame the Qur'an burning entirely on Abdul Rauf. That would make him single-handedly responsible for offending the entire world, Muslims and non-Muslims alike! (Disclaimer for the undiscerning: that was humorous sarcasm).

*UPDATE 3*

After realizing that he'd been conned, Pastor Jones is reconsidering the cancellation.

(CNN)--A Florida pastor who called off a Quran burning said late Thursday he was "rethinking our position" after a Muslim leader said the minister incorrectly announced that the proposed Islamic center near New York's ground zero would be moved as part of a deal. Read more.

Should the Qur'an Be Burned? David Wood and Pastor Terry Jones Debate the Issue (with Calls from James White and Sam Shamoun)

On September 11th, 2010, Pastor Terry Jones is hosting "International Burn the Qur'an Day." Most Americans would agree that Pastor Jones has a legal right to burn books. However, many people would question whether a public book burning is a good idea. Fortunately, America protects our right to have disagreements, and to peacefully discuss our views. In the following discussion, Pastor Jones and David Wood debate the wisdom of Saturday's demonstration. (You can view the initial response of Acts 17 here.)

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE


PART FOUR


PART FIVE


PART SIX


PART SEVEN


PART EIGHT


PART NINE


PART TEN


PART ELEVEN


PART TWELVE


PART THIRTEEN

Gospelophobia Spreads from Dearborn to Kansas

It seems that Kansas Police have swiped a page from the Dearborn Police playbook. They're now violating the Constitutional rights of Christians in order to protect Muslims from hearing the Gospel.

A pastor is facing a court date after sharing the gospel with Muslims -- in Kansas.

About 14 people, including three senior pastors, went to the local mosque to distribute to Muslims packets containing the books of John and Romans in English and Arabic and a DVD with testimonies of former Muslims. Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center was one of those passing out the packets to people leaving the mosque.

Holick tells OneNewsNow that when local police officers arrived on the scene, he was handcuffed then detained in a patrol car, where he repeatedly asked what crime he had committed.

"And then about 15 minutes later, 20 minutes later, something like that, they finally came over and told me that I was being charged with 'loitering' and 'failure to disperse,'" the pastor shares.

Asked if this episode occurred in Saudi Arabia, he replies, with a chuckle: "No, this was in Wichita, Kansas."

The pastor says it was very disconcerting to see the gospel squelched -- especially on a public sidewalk in a country with a constitutional guarantee of free speech. Holick believes police are suggesting that he was blocking traffic on the driveway.

"Of course we never did do that," he assures. "There would be no reason for us to block vehicles -- and they probably have no idea how much I like all of my organs and bones perfectly in the position they're in right now."

Holick says serious free-speech rights are in question, so he is asking the Alliance Defense Fund to represent him. There has been no decision on that so far. Source.

Hmmm. Why does this sound familiar?



Special News Bulletin: Acts 17 on Hate Crimes



It has come to light that perhaps the New York City cab driver's stabbing was not as closely linked to hatred towards Muslims as was initially propounded by virtually all media outlets. Regardless, our position towards attacks on Muslims is the same: stop attacking Muslims!

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

David Wood and Pastor Terry Jones on ABN Tonight at 10:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)

Tonight Pastor Jones and I will be on ABN via Skype discussing his "Burn the Qur'an Day." If you don't get ABN via satellite, you can tune in live over the internet here.

Monday, September 6, 2010

The Upcoming "Burn the Qur'an Day" Has Sparked a "Death to America Day"

Taken from ABC news.

A Florida pastor ignites tensions among Muslims days before 9/11 anniversary.

The crowd in downtown Kabul reached nearly 500 today, with Afghan protesters chanting "Long live Islam " and "Long live the Quran," and burning an effigy of Terry Jones, senior pastor from the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida who is planning the event.

The protesters were well aware of the pastor's inflammatory comments, such as the "Islam is an evil religion," since they have been spread wide on the Internet. Jones has also authored a book, "Islam Is of the Devil."

The protesters' anger wasn't limited to Jones, however. Chants of "Death to America" echoed through the crowd, and U.S. flags were set ablaze alongside the effigy of Jones.

"America cannot eliminate Muslims from the world," one Afghan man told ABC News.

The angry crowd pelted a passing U.S. military convoy with rocks.

Gen. David Petraeus said he is outraged by the pastor's decision to burn the Quran, which he said could "endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort here."

Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Jack Keane, an adviser to Petraeus, called it "outrageous" and "insulting to Muslims."

"It's also insulting to our soldiers in terms of what they stand for and what their commitment is to this country and to the Muslims in this country," Keane told ABC News.

But late today, Jones vowed he would go ahead with the Quran burning, even knowing the concerns of Petraeus and Keane for the safety of U.S. troops.

"What we are doing is long overdue. We are revealing the violence of Islam that is much, much deeper than we'd like to admit," Jones said in an interview with ABC News.

A Facebook page dedicated to the day, entitled "International Burn A Koran Day" has more than 8,000 fans.

"On September 11th, 2010, from 6pm - 9pm, we will burn the Koran on the property of Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL in remembrance of the fallen victims of 9/11 and to stand against the evil of Islam. Islam is of the devil!" the page declares.

Over a hundred other pages have sprung up for and against the event on Sept. 11, incidentally the same day as a Muslim holiday called Eid, celebrating the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting.

Some Muslims fear that images of celebration could fuel further tensions with Americans that day. But in the meantime, in Kabul, there is word that a protest planned for Tuesday could be even larger than the one today.




Here's Acts 17's official response to "Burn the Qur'an Day":

Refuting Adnan Rashid: Was Muhammad the Illiterate Prophet Predicted in Isaiah 29: 11-13?

While investigating certain modern Muslims claims about science in the Qur’an, I came across a lecture of Adnan Rashid, in which he asserts a particular prediction of Muhammad in the book of Isaiah, chapter 29: 11-13.

http://www.hittininstitute.com/video.aspx?ID=31

I felt it would be appropriate to share my thoughts on his interpretation of the passage.
I must say I was slightly puzzled by Adnan’s constant flaws in Biblical interpretation, his historical inaccuracies and his hermeneuctical methods.

As to the presumed prediction of Muhammad, he completely, either fails to grasp the context of the passage or deliberately distorts its meaning.

Hence I encourage everyone, first, to read the passage, then read the full chapter, and finally ask yourself whether, the passage in the context or even separately predicts the coming of distant future, Arabic, illiterate prophet?

Let's elaborate on the chapter and assess this claim of Adnan and numerous other Muslim exponents.

Firstly, the passage concerns the City of David several centuries prior to the birth of Jesus and more than a thousand years prior to Islam (see verses 1: 1-4).

Secondly, the passage describes God blinding the people of Israel, in this case those living and abiding in the City of David (it’s people, the prophets and the seers) for imminent judgement.

Hence neither time nor circumstances fit the description or interpretation of Adnan!

Verses 10-11a reads:

‘The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep, he has sealed your eyes (the prophets) and covered your heads (seers). For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll ’.

Here God clarifies in his revelation to Isaiah the prophet, that his words to this particular community at this particular time cannot be perceived by the particular community.

Consequently then, if the passage concerned the revelation of the Qur’an, the Qur’an would then be unreadable and impossible to perceive particularly by its earliest recipients such as Muhammad and his close followers, and therefore modern attempts by Muslim apologists to utilize this passage to confirm the prediction of the Qur’an will simply backlash.

The revelation to Isaiah continues (verses 11b-12):

‘...And if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, “Read this, please,” he will answer, “I can’t; it is sealed”. Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say “Read this, please,” he will answer, “I don’t know how to read.”

Hence someone, not God, nor Gabriel, but either the prophet of this revelation who is Isaiah, or the ruling body of the city, is informed that the people living in the City of David sometimes between 800-700 BC will be blinded from perceiving the future calamity.

They will be so blinded, that if Isaiah or the ruling body hands a scroll of warning to a reader within the community, he would be unable to read the message therein due to its divine sealing, and if Isaiah would hand the scroll to an illiterate, the person would simply admit his inability to read.

Notice the wording, ‘if’, if Isaiah gives the scroll to a reader or an illiterate.

The passage is not claiming that God will convey his scroll or reveal his word to an illiterate who miraculously will be able to recite. Quite the opposite, that (not God but) Isaiah or another agent is the provider of the word, yet there is no definite command or statement that the scroll was necessarily ever given, but rather ‘if’ you give.

Moreover, the recipients of the scroll (if they were ever handed a scroll) are not one, but two. Therefore, if Muhammad is the illiterate whose divine destruction is imminent, then who is the literate?

Furthermore, both the literate and the illiterate are blinded and singled out with the rest of the community for destruction, not in 570 AD or a little later but in 700 BC, not in Arabia but in the City of David in Israel. If the passage predicted Muhammad's arrival and the rise of the Muslim community, Islam would be wiped by God himself within Muhammad’s era. That is if Adnan and other Muslims are accurate about their hermenuetical skills of the text.

So is this illiterate individual a prophet?

Far from it, every indication to such an interpretation is completely wanted.

This illiterate is not an Arab, he does not abide in Arabia, neither was not alive in Muhammad's era; in fact he is not even a prophet but someone close to the wrath of God.

The only mention of a prophet is possibly to Isaiah himself who probably never handed a scroll to this poor individual, but if he did, this individual would gain absolutely nothing from this encounter with the Word of God.

I am virtually astonished that Muslims resort to such speculative and distortive approaches of interpretation to boost their desperate ideas.

Adnan Rashid, committed in fact a number of errors, e.g. stating that the Isaiah scroll was written five centuries prior to Muhammad, while in fact, the two Isaiah scrolls were written approximately 150 and 100 BC. Furthermore, his claim that the Isaiah scroll is the oldest manuscript of Jewish scripture. There are in fact a number of written Scriptures in our possession that precede the scroll of Isaiah.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Muslims Freely Distribute Information to Exiting Festival Goers

You've got to love the United States, where Muslims are free to distribute information about Islam even to people who don't believe in Islam. This is the heart of the U.S. Constitution. The rights of everyone are protected. Of course, when Muslim numbers rise, such religious freedom suddenly changes, as can be seen in Dearborn (where nearly one-third of the population is Muslim).



So a few of us tried to distribute copies of the Gospel of John outside of an Arab Festival, and we were surrounded by eight Glock-carrying police officers, taken into custody, photographed, and released with a stern warning that we would be thrown in jail if we handed out any more copies of the Gospel. (But at least they didn't immediately arrest us while having a peaceful conversation, as they had done two days earlier.)

Muslims, of course, receive different treatment when they attend a festival and distribute their materials.

FOX NEWS--Despite the smells of fried dough and roasted meat wafting from the Minnesota State Fair, Salim and Zuleyha Ozonder were focused on the people who were leaving, not the food or festivities beckoning from across the street.

Each time a new wave of people exited, the young Minneapolis residents — who hadn't eaten all day — tried to press into their hands a small, glossy card that read "Islam Explained" on one side. On the other, it had about 180 words of background on a religion whose adherents fear is being misunderstood by too many Americans as violent and depraved.

"You just want people to take the card, spend a minute reading it and say, 'Oh. They're not terrorists,'" said 27-year-old Zuleyha. She and her husband, like other Muslims, were fasting during daylight hours for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

For most fairgoers, the last thing on their mind is religion — particularly the renewed controversy over Islam in America amid tension over plans for an Islamic center and mosque a few blocks from New York City's ground zero. But volunteers with the Minnesota chapter of Islamic Circle of North America saw the mostly white, Christian fair crowd as just the type of audience that might benefit from greater understanding.

The "Great Minnesota Get-Together" is one of the largest and best-attended state fairs in the country. Every day for 12 days through Labor Day, hundreds of thousands of people stream onto the fairgrounds north of St. Paul to scarf highly caloric food, stare at farm animals, clamber onto carnival rides and enjoy concerts by country singers and classic rock dinosaurs.

"What are they doing here?" said Paulette Kahlstorf of Zimmerman, who declined a card from Zuleyha as she left the fairgrounds with her husband. "I didn't come here for that."

A minute later, Kahlstorf elaborated that she didn't have a problem with all Muslims: "Just the radical ones." And she said she didn't mind their decision to hand out the cards, which include a toll-free number that anyone can call to request a free copy of the Quran. Read More.

"Jesus or Muhammad" Tonight (10:30 P.M., EST) and Tomorrow (8:00 P.M., EST)

It's that time again. Tonight (Saturday, 10:30 P.M.) we'll be discussing Muhammad's antagonism of the polytheists when he was in Mecca. We'll have another show tomorrow (Sunday, 8:00 P.M.). If you don't get ABN via satellite, you can watch live on the internet here.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The Original Burn the Qur'an Day

Quite possibly the greatest video ever made.



For more posts on the preservation of the Qur'an, click here.

Description: This September 11th, a church in Florida is protesting the growing influence of Islam by offending 1.5 billion people. Specifically, they're staging a "Burn the Quran" Day. But is this the first day of its kind? In fact, is today's Qur'an the Qur'an that Muhammad intended his followers to have? Let's take a look at the evidence!

Roger Williams Revisited

Our lawyer has been requesting the written statement of Roger Williams for a while, and the City of Dearborn finally gave it to us (on the last business day before our hearing). After reading it, you'll see why the city didn't want to give it to us. According to Roger's official story, Amal Alslami had to round up a few people to "break through" the Acts 17 barrier and rescue him from our midst! Here's Roger's version of things (in his written report to police). Note: All spelling and grammatical errors are in the original.

On Friday evening, June 18th, 2010, I was volunteering at the International Arab Festival located in Dearborn MI. I had come into contact with two men that were going through the festival passing out literature. They both had backpacks on and they were filled with flyers. I explained to them both that they were not any literature inside of the festival. They both said no problem and left and took the backpacks offs. I saw them both about an hour later and one of them came up to me and apologize to me and let me know that he would not pass out anything and he just wanted to talk to some of the Arabic people. I shook his hand and thanked him and as he was leaving the men and a lady surrounded me with their cameras want to know why that those guys could not pass out flyers. I told them I was not willing to talk on camera and to turn the camera off. Then one got right behind and one on either side of me. I felt I was being trapped and felt as I was being threatened. I told them I would call security and they started saying, “tell me what law we broke?” I again told them that I am not speaking to them and to please turn the camera off. At this time one the Chamber workers, Amal had been watching the whole thing and called for one of the volunteers to take pictures of each one for identification purposes. She and a few others broke through their group and escorted me out from them. We then we to the police and made a complaint.

I have tried to put everything I remember exactly as it happened. I hope I did not leave anything out. If you need additional information please contact me at the phone number and address below.

Thank you

Roger A Williams

If you need to me come up there for any court as a witness I would be more than happy to. These guys are liars and try to insight riots. I have reviewed some stuff they have placed on You tube and no of it is accurate.

Once again, here's what really happened:



Contrary to Roger's delusional-in-the-extreme version of events, we didn't ask him why Luke couldn't hand out flyers, we did not surround him, Negeen was behind some tents (rather than surrounding him), he did not tell us to stop recording (let alone twice), Amal Alslami wasn't even there, and no one had to rescue him from us.

Even more shocking than Roger's fanciful rewriting of history, prosecuting attorney William DeBiasi is relying on Roger's testimony as part of his case against us! If that isn't enough, he's also calling on Amal Alslami as a witness of our supposed harassment of Roger, since Amal initially claimed to have witnessed it. Yet Amal later told a detective that she wasn't even there! And she's about to be one of the star witnesses! This just keeps getting weirder and weirder. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

In any other city, Roger would be in trouble for lying. Amal Alslami would be in trouble for lying. The police would be in trouble for lying. The mayor would be in trouble for lying. And William DeBiasi would be a laughingstock for throwing justice out the window in an effort to please the Muslim community. But this is Dearborn. The rules just don't apply.

Updates on Our Last Hearing

Michigan State Representative Tom McMillan attended our hearing. He later commented on Facebook:

"Watching in the court, two hours of debate yesterday between the city prosecutor, the judge and the defendants' attorney, it is crystal clear that the city of Dearborn has no case whatsoever and is only doing this to attack free speech of Christians."

He also commented in an article by the Detroit News:

"It seems to me they are trying to silence Christians -- not the citizens of Dearborn, some officials . . . There's nothing that warrants this persecution by the city of Dearborn."

It's nice to know that some Michigan lawmakers are paying attention to what's happening in Dearborn.

Doug Vos of the Dearborn Free Press was also at our hearing. He wrote a good editorial:

Monday morning, at the 19th District Court in Dearborn, Judge Mark Somers deliberated over a pre-trial hearing concerning an incident which occurred at Dearborn’s 15th annual Arab International Festival on Friday, June 14th. As previously reported in the Dearborn Free Press, several people affiliated with the Acts 17 Apologetics group were arraigned on July 12th, on charges of “breach of peace”. The four Christians, David Wood (a 34 year old former atheist) from Bronx, New York, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi (a 29 year old former Muslim) from Virginia, Nageen Mayel (a recent convert from Islam to Christianity), and Paul Rezkalla (18) from New York were charged with “breach of peace” or disturbing the peace. However, 18-year-old Nageen Mayel, who was operating a video camera on the night of June 14th, was also charged with “refusing to obey a police officer’s order to stop video taping”. (It was not clear at first if police intended to arrest Ms. Mayel, or just investigate her.)

The defendant’s attorney, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars (in an attempt to clarify the specific charges) with the City of Dearborn on July 27. On August 3rd, Judge Somers converted the Motion for a Bill of Particulars into a Motion to Dismiss, giving the City of Dearborn 14 days to respond.

During the pre-trial on August 30, Judge Somers reviewed arguments from both sides and asked the attorneys for clarification on some issues, postponing any decision until he receives the additional information. Judge Somers stated that he had reviewed most of the 6 hours of video tape, and asked questions about the chronology of events. Somers indicated that in the video tapes he had reviewed, the dialogue of Dr. Qureshi was “very civil and polite”. He also requested better audio recordings of the Nageen Mayel arrest, perhaps to resolve confusion regarding the criminal complaint about Ms. Mayel. Judge Somers also requested that Assistant City Attorney William M. Debiasi provide citations for several cases that were referenced as being pertinent to this case. If the case goes to trial it would most likely begin on Monday, Sept. 20, 2010. Read More.

The Christian Post also wrote a good piece on our hearing:

A district court judge in Michigan declined to dismiss a case against four street preachers who were arrested back in June after engaging in conversations with attendees of a large Arab festival.

Judge Marks Somers of 19th District Court in Dearborn heard arguments for two hours on Monday and said he needed clarification on some issues that had been raised before deciding whether or not to drop the charges against Negeen Mayel, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla, and David Wood.

Defense attorney Robert Muise, senior trial counsel with the Thomas More Law Center, argued in court that the group did nothing wrong and that their arrest violates their constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion.

"My clients should not stand trial for exercising their First Amendment rights," Muise said. Read More.