The Two Faces of Abdullah al-Andalusi

The British government is finally catching on to the extremist views of Abdullah al-Andalusi. Britons should be disturbed that their own security specialists took so long to figure this out, especially since I wrote an article on Abdullah's radical views more than five years ago. The article is titled: "Abdullah al-Andalusi Defends Terrorism, Tries to Cover-Up His Words, Condemns Muhammad, and Threatens Legal Jihad!"

The Telgraph—The Government watchdog which inspects police forces’ readiness for terrorism admitted that it employed one of Britain’s most notorious Islamic extremists.

For almost two years Abdullah al Andalusi, led a double life, the Telegraph can reveal.

By night, he taught that the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was “no different to Western armies,” said that “kaffirs,” non-Muslims, would be “punished in hell” and claimed that the British government wanted to destroy Islam.

By day, using a different name, he went to work for the same British government at the London offices of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), the official regulator of all 44 forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The disclosures will be intensely embarassing to the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has criticised parts of Britain’s Muslim communities for “quietly condoning” Islamist extremism.

HMIC’s staff, who number less than 150, are given privileged access to highly sensitive and classified police and intelligence information to carry out their inspections.

The inspectorate’s work includes scrutinising police forces’ counter-terrorism capabilities and top-secret plans for dealing with terror attacks.

It has also recently published reports on undercover policing and the use of informants.

HMIC admitted that Mr al Andalusi, whose real name is Mouloud Farid, had passed a security vetting check to work as a civil servant at the inspectorate.

He was subsequently promoted to executive grade, a management rank, placing him at the heart of the security establishment.

He was only sacked after bosses spotted him on television defending extremist Islamic positions on behalf of his organisation, the Muslim Debate Initiative, which is heavily dependent on Saudi money.

The inspectorate insisted that he did not handle classified material but former friends of Mr al Andalusi said he had done so.

“His work did involve security areas. He said he had a role in overseeing the police response to terrorism and there were areas he couldn’t talk about,” said one former colleague at the Muslim Debate Initiative, who asked to remain anonymous.

“He would discuss the reports that HMIC were working on and the data they needed to present.

“His story is so odd and so scandalous in many respects. He had these two completely incompatible lives that went on for years. He despised Britain, yet worked for the British government. He would talk about the right of oppressed people to take up arms against the oppressor and yet he was overseeing the police.

“Opportunities came along to do dawah [preaching] as a full-time job, but he was never tempted to do that because he had a stable income and pension with the civil service.”

One anti-extremism activist, who knew said Mr al Andalusi, said: “[Al-Andalusi] admitted it to a few people. It is the hypocrisy of it that surprises me.”

MPs have called for a full investigation into how someone with as long a record of extremism as Mr al Andalusi had survived vetting and been appointed to his post.

Under the name by which he was known to HMIC, Mouloud Farid, his links with the Muslim Debate Initiative were a matter of public record.

He was registered as a director of the organisation at Companies House, though he earlier this year changed to yet a third name, Wazir Leton Rahman, on the companies register.

“This man’s unsuitability for sensitive work should have been obvious from the start,” said Khalid Mahmood, Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr.

“There is a lack of understanding of different strains of Islam in the civil service. I will be asking why the systems designed to prevent this did not work.”

Mr al Andalusi, a prominent figure on the extremist lecture circuit, is closely associated with the extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir, which believes that voting and democracy are un-Islamic.

He is also a strong supporter of the terrorist lobby group Cage, which sparked outrage earlier this year when it defended the Isil hostage-killer Mohammed Emwazi, “Jihadi John,” as a “beautiful” and “gentle” man who had been radicalised by MI5. Like Cage, Mr al-Andalusi fiercely supports the right of British citizens to travel to Syria to fight.

He spoke at a Cage rally outside his own employer’s parent department, the Home Office, to demonstrate against the arrest of the former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg, on Syria-related terror charges, later dropped. Alongside him were other high-profile extremists and hate preachers including Haitham al-Haddad and senior figures in Hizb ut Tahrir.

Mr al Andalusi has spoken at at least three other Cage events in the last ten months, including on September 20 last year when he claimed that, as part of its “war against Islam,” the British government wanted to force Muslims to eat non-halal meat.

He says that Western liberal society is committed to the “destruction” of all Muslim belief and shows on his Facebook page a picture a concentration camp with a Nazi swastika and “21st century” written on the watchtower.

In the foreground is a gallows with a short route to the hangman’s noose for “Islamists” and a longer route for “Muslim moderates.”

A spokesman for HMIC said: “Mr Farid was investigated for gross misconduct by taking part in public activity that compromised his impartial service to government, thereby breaching the Civil Service Code. He was suspended immediately whilst investigations were ongoing.”

The HMIC accepted Mr Farid’s resignation in July last year, the spokesman added. But the security lapse has only just emerged – coinciding with the government putting a new statutory duty on public bodies, including schools, to monitor and root out extremism.

In a talk at Queen Mary University, in East London, on 16 January, he asked why the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, was treated as a terrorist organisation by the West while the moderate Free Syrian Army was not.

He condemned memorials to 9/11, describing the terror attacks as “the day a vicious world empire [the US] found a publicly-acceptable excuse to bomb others, invade non-threatening nations, torture political dissidents and kill at least 300,000 innocent people.”

After Isil took over large portions of Iraq last year, he wrote that “most Muslims would be jubilant at the return of the caliphate [Islamic state], which is a vital obligation upon Muslims that has been conspicuously missing for so long.”

He condemned the group for killing civilians but said that the West had “no basis to judge Islamic State” because “IS are no different to Western armies and even some of the ‘founding fathers’ of Western nations… IS’s crime is being actually a good student of the West, right down to their corporate structure and organisation and ability to use social media.”

He said that “those who reject IS merely because IS’s school of thought is disagreeable to them should remember that Islam permits difference of opinion. To reject something as outside the fold of Islam, due to it being a different school of thought to one’s own, makes one a purveyor of disunity among Muslims.”

The former friends of Mr al Andalusi said they had left the Muslim Debate Initiative when it became increasingly extreme and dominated by donations from a wealthy Saudi businessman. (Continue Reading.)

To understand why Abdullah claims to support and defend Great Britain during the day while promoting extremism at night, watch this video on taqiyya:

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!)

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

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

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

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

Hi guys,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll conclude with some advice to Abdullah.

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

"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" Abdullah Andalusi and Yahya Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood

OPENING STATEMENTS


REBUTTALS


CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS

James White vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi: Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Unbelievable?

For more on Abdullah al-Andalusi, click here.