Texas Muslim Has "No Pity" for Victims of Fort Hood Massacre

Revolution Muslim: Street Dawah

You have to respect their honesty concerning what the Qur'an actually teaches. (They seem to be in full agreement with Abdullah al-Andalusi on the Fort Hood Massacre.)



P.S. If anyone ever knows where these guys are going to be, please let me know. I'm only a subway ride away from them, and I wouldn't mind having a nice street debate.

*NOTE: This man clearly states that the Qur'an 8:60 is the justification for these terrorist attacks - do we really need to wonder what Islam teaches and what many Muslims believe?

Abdullah al-Andalusi and Other Muslims Support the Terrorist Attack at Fort Hood

Just a few months ago, Nabeel and I debated Abdullah al-Andalusi and Yahya Seymour on whether Islam is a religion of peace. Apparently, either Abdullah was practicing Taqiyya when he claimed that Islam is a religion of peace, or Nabeel and I convinced him that Muslims are called to fight the infidels. Why do I say this? Abdullah has already announced his support of the attack on Fort Hood. In the comments section of a previous post, Abdullah wrote:

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').

So the attack was justified because it was a military target, and the civilians killed were "just a sad accident of war." According to Abdullah, then, Muslims in the U.S. military are justified if they open fire on military bases.

I have never said that we are at war with Islam, but others have been condemned for saying as much. I find it interesting, however, that even moderate Muslims like Abdullah al-Andalusi believe that Islam is at war with the West and that Muslims are justified in attacking any military target--even if the Muslims have sworn to protect their country "against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

For more on Muslims supporting Hasan's attack, see the following:

Washington D.C.'s Khadeeja Nuur and other Muslims Pray for Allah to Bless Hasan withe a Full Recovery

Killeen Mosque Member Sides with Attacker

Muslims at Fort Hood Blame the Military for Hasan's Attack

Here's a video of some American Muslims calling Hasan "an officer and a gentleman":



Isn't it strange that Muslim organizations like CAIR an ISNA are claiming that Muslims condemn such attacks?

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters on the Fort Hood Massacre and Political Correctness

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters is one of the few, the proud, the honest. He's demanding that we call terrorism what it is--terrorism.

Ralph Peters on O'Reilly Factor



Ralph Peters in the NY Post

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting, "Allahu akbar!" ("God is great!") committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11. And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Fort Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of nondenominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it's an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit -- well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won't. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there's no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

And the Army won't. Because its senior leaders are so sick with political correctness that pandering to America haters is safer than calling terrorism "terrorism."

And the media won't. Because they have more interest in the shooter than in our troops -- despite their crocodile tears. READ MORE.

"Revolution Muslim": Yousef al-Khattab and Younes Abdullah Mohammed

In light of so much deception from CAIR, ISNA, the media, and other groups, you have to respect the honesty of these men. Anyone care to guess their view of yesterday's terrorist attack?

Muslims Claim Victim Status . . . Again

The day after a Muslim killed thirteen and wounded thirty in a vicious terror attack, Muslims once again portray themselves as victims. But is it Muslims who are really in danger in this country?

Since yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan's family has been claiming that people made fun of him for his Muslim faith (as if this justifies the violence he committed). Indeed, such reports have been splashed across the major media outlets, in a rather obvious effort to build some sympathy for this poor, poor terrorist.

Unfortunately for Hasan's family and supporters, there's no evidence of such an anti-Muslim bias in the military.

Fox News--A Muslim veteran affairs organization says it has not received reports of harassment from Islamic soldiers, contrary to claims by a relative of the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base.

Abdul-Rashid Abdullah, deputy director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, told FoxNews.com that the nonprofit group has not received a single report recently of a U.S. soldier being harassed "simply because he was Muslim."

"That kind of report is inconsistent with what we've heard," Abdullah said prior to a press conference in Washington to denounce Thursday's shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 dead and 30 wounded. Source.

But the mythical Muslim persecution doesn't end there. Muslims are calling for extra protection of their mosques in the aftermath of the Muslim attack against the American military.

Following the shootings at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas on Thursday, those at the Islamic Center for PEACE in Fort Myers have requested additional police patrols, though there have so far been no threats to the center.

Alibaba Lumumba, president of the center, said anytime there is a crime allegedly committed by a Muslim, the whole Muslim community suffers.

“But when there is a Christian who commits a crime, we don’t get into his religion or whether he wears a cross or not,” Lumumba said. “It’s a lack of knowledge about what Islam is and what it is not. Such acts of violence, especially if there were women, children or elderly who were hurt, are not condoned by Islam.” Source.

When a Christian commits a crime, he's acting contrary to the teachings of Jesus. When a Muslim kills non-Muslims (especially those who will be fighting against Muslims), he's perfectly in line with the teachings of Islam. But the media will never say such a thing.

So why are Muslims claiming to be victims when non-Muslims are being killed? As Robert Spencer notes,

CAIR knows well that victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for Muslims in the U.S., they can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism. Source.

Indeed, CAIR has often resorted to fabricating hate crimes and statistics in order to mislead people into believing that hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry give the actual statistics in their new book, Muslim Mafia:

After 9/11, CAIR cited an explosion in anti-Islamic hate crimes in demanding more outreach with the FBI and special rights and protections for Muslims. "Unlike any other past crisis," CAIR claimed, "the post-September 11 anti-Muslim backlash has been the most violent."

But the latest Justice Department data on hate crimes reveal CAIR has been crying wolf. Not only are anti-Islamic hate crimes way down, but they're a fraction of overall religious hate crimes. The overwhelming majority of such crimes target Jews, something CAIR and other Muslim groups don't seem all that concerned about.

In 2007, a whopping 69 percent of religiously motivated attacks were on Jews, while just 8 percent targeted Muslims--even though the Jewish and Muslim populations are comparable in size. Catholics and Protestants, who together account for almost 9 percent of victims, are subject to as much abuse as Muslims in this country.

In the most recent year, anti-Islamic hate crimes totaled 115. While just one hate crime is one too many, that's a 26 percent drop from 2006 and a 76 percent plunge from 2001. And the number is minuscule compared with the 969 offenses against Jews. For every attack on a Muslim in this country, there are nine against a Jew. (pp. 141-2)

When are people going to catch on to the fact that Muslims are lying about what's in their sources, lying about the motivation behind terrorist attacks, lying about persecution against them, lying about their true allegiance, and lying about their ultimate goals in the U.S.? When are reporters going to turn to Muslim sources and realize that such lying is allowed in Islam?

*****UPDATE***** The Associated Press has announced: "Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate over Suspect Accused of Killing 13 at Army Base." So there's been an immediate backlash against Muslims, eh? And what has this anti-Muslim backlash consisted of? Murdered Muslims? Bombed Mosques? No. AP offers only one instance so far:

The Arab-American Institute said it received one threatening call from an unidentified male shortly after Hasan's name was released. The group, which condemned the massacre, said it expected more.

That's it? A phone call? And a fearful expectation of more . . . phone calls? Have we even begun to fathom the control Muslims have over the media? A Muslim shot more than three dozen American soldiers while shouting "Allahu Akbar," and the media treats a phone call (assuming it even happened) as an "anti-Muslim Backlash."

Jesus' Greatest vs. Muhammad's Best

In light of the events of recent days, or perhaps I should say the “better” part of the past 1400 years, the following contrast would seem to be a timely one.

Those Muslims who say they love God and their neighbor, and who, in keeping with this, few though they may be compared to the greater body of Muslims in history, condemn the many irreligious and inhumane acts of their co-religionists, should weigh the following carefully.
--------------------

According to Jesus, the greatest commandment is to love God above all else and with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself:

One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that He is one, and there is no one else besides Him; and to love Him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as himself, is much more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." When Jesus saw that he had answered intelligently, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." After that, no one would venture to ask Him any more questions. (Mark 12:28ff.)

According to Muhammad, the greatest deed is to believe in Allah and his apostle, and the second is to participate in Jihad in Allah’s cause.

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet was asked, "Which is the best deed?" He said, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle." He was then asked, "Which is the next (in goodness)?" He said, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." He was then asked, "Which is the next?" He said, "To perform Hajj-Mabrur. " (Bukhari 2:26:594; see also 1:2:25)

--------------------

The disparity between the teaching of Jesus on the one hand, and that of Muhammad on the other couldn’t be clearer. But for the sake of those who are slow of mind and heart, consider the following brief commentary on the differences:

1. With respect to the first commandment/greatest deed, there is a monumental difference between merely believing in God and actually loving Him. Furthermore, even if we accept the baser idea suggested by Muhammad to be the greatest duty or the best deed, there is still a trenchant difference to be found between a faith that is directed at God alone, and one that is directed at God and a creature in addition to Him.

2. With respect to the second commandment/greatest deed, there is a difference of mammoth proportions between loving your neighbor, which clearly includes more than just fellow believers according to Jesus (cf. Luke 10:25-37, esp. 30-37), and engaging in Jihad, the full implications of which include warring against those who do not believe.

What Jesus taught about the first (and second) greatest commandment is undeniably greater than what Muhammad taught; what Muhammad taught about the first (and second) best deed is undeniably bested by what Jesus taught. It takes a very special person to say otherwise, and all too often they make the news saying it….just ask Major Nidal Malik Hasan.

Fort Hood Massacre

Today, Major Nidal Malik Hasan launched a brutal attack at Fort Hood, leaving twelve dead and more than thirty injured. Hasan was a dedicated Muslim who was upset at the United States Military for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Prior to the attack against his fellow soldiers, Hasan had been saying that Muslims could rise up against the United States and suggested that Muslims blow up Times Square. However, no one wanted to kick him out of the military, for fear of being labeled "Islamophobes."



Not surprisingly, CAIR and ISNA have both condemned the attacks, claiming that there can be no religious support for such violence. Apparently, either our friends at CAIR and ISNA are practicing Taqiyya, or they have never read . . .

Qur'an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

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.

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.

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 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 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.”

Ibn Ishaq, p. 130—[Muhammad said]: "Will you listen to me O Quraysh? By him who holds my life in His hand I bring you slaughter."

READ MORE: "Muslims Claim Victim Status . . . Again"

Debate Announcement

Arizona Muslim Runs Over His Daughter in an Honor Killing

Noor, a young girl from Arizona, was run over by her father for being too Western two weeks ago. ABC news has said that she died today. In the midst of such a tragedy, it seems television reporters and even the police can keep their composure enough to avoid the words "Muslim" and "Honor Killing".

Muslims Assault Reporter outside Detroit Mosque

Hmmmm. Now where have I seen Muslims in Michigan get violent towards someone with a camera?

David, Sam, and Mary Jo on ABN This Friday, Saturday, and Sunday

It's that time again! "Jesus or Muhammad" this weekend on ABN, with special guest Mary Jo Sharp of Confident Christianity! Here's the schedule.

FRIDAY
6:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
10:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.

SATURDAY
6:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M.
10:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.

SUNDAY
6:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M.
10:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.

We look forward to calls from Muslims. (We expect to hear from Osama, but we would love to hear from WomanforTruth.)

To watch the program, simply visit ABN's website and click the third box on the right for live-streaming.

Osama Abdallah Proclaims: "Christians Are the Biggest Trash and Losers in the Christian World!"

In response to a video showing Muslim violence in France, Osama Abdallah has apologized for violence in the name of Allah, and has dedicated his life to fighting against terrorism and extremism. No wait, he didn't do that at all. Instead, he did what Muslims typically do when Muslim atrocities are pointed out. He attacked Christians, saying, "THE CHRISTIANS ARE THE BIGGEST TRASH AND LOSERS in the christian world."

Now where would a Muslim get the idea that Christians are horrible people, when so many Muslims claim that Islam respects Christians?

Qur'an 8:55--Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

Qur'an 98:6--Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Hmmm. Given the fact that Christians are such horrible creatures (according to both the Qur'an and Osama), it seems that Muslims should treat us like garbage whenever they're strong enough to do so. Wait! That's exactly what Muslims were doing in the video!

*****UPDATE***** Osama isn't letting up. He just added:

TRULY, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE INDEED, BY THE ABSOLUTE FARTHEST, THE FILTHIEST SCUMS OF ALL HUMANS ON PLANET EARTH, with the exception of few who were promised Paradise by Allah Almighty!

So Osama agrees with the Qur'an on this one.

He also added in the comments section here an open condemnation of America, calling it "the great babel and prostitute of the bible."

There's certainly nothing to worry about when Muslims right here in America have absolutely no loyalty to America and want to see it fall.

A Reply To Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part Two

The following is a continuation of the post found here.

The previous post demonstrated that Sam was justified in asserting that the Jews expected a Jewish prophet, a fact that forces Muslims to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews of John 1:19-21 could have been mistaken in believing the Prophet and the Christ to be separate individuals. This led Sam to point out that John’s Gospel as a whole affirms their belief that the Prophet would be an Israelite, but confutes their expectation that the Prophet would be someone other than the Messiah Himself.

Unhappy with the conclusion Sam drew from the evidence on this score, Yahya accuses him of engaging in textual acrobatics, but in Yahya’s efforts to prove this harebrained charge he ends up looking like an exegetical cat on hot textual bricks, as the reader is invited to see.

(The following picks up my enumeration where I left off.)

*******

8. Presumably because the passage does not specifically identify Jesus as “the Prophet” and “the Christ,” Yahya dismisses the relevance of the testimony found in John 1:45, where it is written:

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Yet, if Yahya would continue to read the chapter, he would find not only that Nathanael identified Jesus as the Messiah, saying, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel,” but that he did so in response to Christ’s display of prophetic insight into his character and the circumstances surrounding his calling, all of which shows just what Nathanael understood Philip to mean when he spoke of Jesus as the one foretold by Moses and the Prophets:

The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." (John 1:43-49)

It is also well to observe that this passage is not only found in the same chapter as the discussion of John 1:19ff, but it is quickly followed in John’s Gospel by Jesus performing a Moses-like miracle, i.e. changing water into wine, as we see in the next chapter.

9. With respect to John 5:39-40, which says,

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”

Yahya tells us that these verses don’t shed any further light on the matter, for they don’t call Jesus the Christ and the Prophet.

Aside from the fact that Yahya completely glossed over the other verses that Sam quoted along with verses 39-40, namely, verses 46-47, where Jesus says that He is the one spoken of by Moses, this reply shows once again that Yahya has absolutely no regard for context.

The words of Christ found in John 5 are once again followed in the next chapter by a Moses-like miracle, i.e. the miracle of feeding five thousand people, a sign that harkened back to the Manna that was provided for the people of Israel from heaven under Moses’ ministry.

10. In fact, it is this very miracle that led the people to say, as Sam pointed out:

Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world." (John 6:14)

In response to this, Yahya makes what is perhaps his greatest blunder:

Again, this reference does not prove Shamoun’s belief that “the Prophet” and the Christ was the same person. All this reference teaches us is that a group of people saw Jesus performing a “miraculous sign” and then they believed him to be “the Prophet”. There is no mention of the people calling him the Christ as well in this passage and nor is there any mention of the people exclaiming the two are the same person. Suffice it to say Shamoun interpolates his own understanding and imposes it upon the people of this passage without any authority or logical reasoning whatsoever. Even if we go with the view that Jesus is “the Prophet” then the question of who was the Christ arises.

Yahya’s blunder is exposed by the verse that immediately follows:

So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone. (John 6:15)

This verse clearly shows that these Jews believed the Prophet and the Christ, i.e. the Messianic King, would be the same person, and, consequently, leave Mr. Snow and his argument out in the cold.

Although I have much more that I would like to say on this and one point in particular that I am saving for a special occasion – to be released once I think Yahya has been sufficiently prepped and primed – it just doesn’t seem right not to give Mr. Snow a chance to scrabble his way up from the bottom of the avalanche he presently finds himself buried under. Accordingly, I will break off my reply here for now.

Muslims Torture and Behead Woman on Camera

In the comments section of our video on the fall of France, WomanforTruth101 declared:

I dont see islam in many muslim countries. But however it is proving my faith true with every bomb that goes off, with every threat, with every scandal etc.

The idea seems to be that violence in the name of Islam is some kind of confirmation that Islam is true. (Correct me if I've misinterpreted your words, WomanforTruth.)

Well, here's more confirmation that Islam is true.

*****WARNING***** This video contains graphic violence. If you found it difficult to stomach Al Qaeda's Schoolyard Massacre, don't watch this video.



I will ask Muslims again: Since you are trying to propagate Islam in the West, how do you propose to stop the rise of violent Islamic groups when Islam spreads? If you know how to control such groups, why don't you control them in Muslim countries? If you can't control them, wouldn't you agree that non-Muslims should be strongly opposed to the spread of Islam?

Farewell, France

France generously brought millions of Muslims to its lovely country. The Muslims thanked France by turning it into the countries they were fleeing from. I suspect it's too late for France to turn things around. But it's not too late for the rest of us to take note.



And now I'll ask the Muslims who are going to comment here: How are you going to stop this from happening in the UK, Canada, and the US, when Muslim numbers rise?

Rifqa Bary Interview--Transcript and Audio

Rifqa Bary was interviewed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to determine whether she was in danger in Ohio for converting from Islam to Christianity. Interestingly, the FDLE declared that it would be inappropriate to investigate whether Islam calls for the deaths of apostates, and said that they refuse to look into the matter. (If they had, they would have discovered the facts presented here.) This, of course, made it Rifqa's word vs. the word of her parents, of Taqiyya-practicing Muslims, and of the Muslim-backing media. (Rifqa's parents were also interviewed. While Rifqa was forced to be alone during her interview, her parents were permitted to have members of CAIR in the room for support.) The FDLE concluded, despite Rifqa's testimony, that she is in no danger from Muslims. She has already been returned to Ohio, where she awaits her first hearing there. The audio of the interview can be heard here, and the transcript can be read here.

Sam Shamoun vs. Yahya Snow on the Implications of John 1:19-21

This exchange has been painful to listen to. I don't see how Yahya can't get a basic point. Muslims appeal to Jewish expectation in John 1 and claim that, since certain Jews were apparently expecting three different people (the Messiah, Elijah, and the Prophet), "the Prophet" must be someone other than Jesus, and, for some reason, must therefore be Muhammad.

Apart from the obvious difficulties associated with claiming that Muhammad is "the Prophet like Moses" of Deuteronomy 18:18 (e.g. the fact that Muhammad was not a Jew, could not perform miracles, did not speak with God face to face, and was clearly condemned as a false prophet just two verses later in Deuteronomy 18:20), there is the absurdity of appealing to the expectations of certain Jews to prove a point, especially when the expectation in question has no grounding in any scripture and when the view was so limited in extent that we have no record of it outside of a small passage in the Gospel of John.

Sam addressed the major problem for Muslims, namely, that if they're appealing to the Jewish expectation that the Prophet would be distinct from the Messiah, they can't ignore the Jewish expectation that the Prophet would be an Israelite (since they approached John, who was an Israelite). In other words, if Muslims believe that Jewish expectations about the Prophet were correct, the Jews should have gone to an Arab. But they didn't.

So Muslims must conclude that these Jews were wrong in their expectations. But how can Muslims say that the Jews were wrong in their expectations and then appeal to Jewish expectation as evidence for their Prophet? Welcome to the most inconsistent religion in the world, my friends.

Amazingly, rather than reject the absurd Muslim argument as any intellectually honest examiner would, Yahya Snow has attempted to refute Sam's arguments. But Yahya just can't seem to grasp the most basic points. For instance, he declares that, according to Sam's reasoning, the Jews must have expected the Messiah to have a natural birth, because they asked John if he was the Messiah. But this misses the point entirely. Sam isn't appealing to Jewish expectation. Sam is claiming that it's a mistake to base one's case on Jewish expectation, and he points out the fact that the Jews were expecting a Jewish prophet in order to show Muslims that their claim is self-refuting. Yet Yahya just doesn't seem to get this, and he's posting videos to defend his total misunderstanding both of John's Gospel and of Sam's arguments.

Here's a review of the exchange so far, beginning with the relevant passage from John.

John 1:19-23--This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not " "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said."

(Shockingly, Yahya claims that there's no indication in the text that John believed he was preparing the way for God. Did anyone catch verse 23?

Sam's First Argument:



Yahya's First Response:



Sam's Reply to Yahya:



Yahya's Second Response:



Yahya also wrote an article on this topic, which can be read here. Our very own Semper Paratus responded to Yahya's article here.

I have something more from Sam on this issue as well. When asked about Yahya's position, Sam sent the following email to a Christian:

Hey Bro,

Here is my reply. Let me know if it now makes sense.

As I said in the show we don’t know what the Baptist knew as far as the relationship between the Christ and the Prophet was concerned, and since we cannot enter his mind we have no business second-guessing him. It must be stated that God didn’t reveal everything to the prophets. He revealed only that which they needed to know, no more and no less.

However since Yahya is using the Baptist’s silence to prove his assertion he needs to continue reading a little further to see what the Baptist said concerning his role and function:

“John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, “Make straight the way for the Lord.”’” John 1:23

Here is the OT text that the Baptist was quoting:

“Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.’… You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’ See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.” Isaiah 40:3-5, 9-11

According to Isaiah the voice, or herald, was to prepare for the coming of God, the appearance of the glory of Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh was going to appear visibly for all to see after the voice prepared the people for his coming.

Since the Baptist explicitly says that he is that voice this means that Jesus is Yahweh God since John himself says that he came to prepare his way:

“Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?' I baptize with water,' John replied, 'but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’ … The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, “A man who comes after me has surpassed me BECAUSE HE WAS BEFORE ME.” I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.’ Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.’" John 1:25-27, 29-34

It now makes sense why the Baptist could say that Jesus existed before him since Jesus is the God of the OT who was coming to reveal himself to his people and therefore existed long before the Baptist was born.

Moreover, John the Apostle mentions the testimony of the Baptist right after stating that Jesus is God and that he (as well as others) saw or beheld his glory:

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him; nothing has been made without him that has been made. In him was life that life was the light of men… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.”’ John 1:1-4, 14-15

Notice the connection between the Apostle’s words here with Isaiah 40:3-5 and the glory of Yahweh which would be seen by all.

Thus, according to both Johns Jesus is the human appearance, the visible manifestation, of the OT God of Israel.

In light of this are you telling me that Muhammad is a prophet whom the Baptist would accept in light of what John’s Gospel tells us the Baptist believed about Christ?

But we’re not finished yet. Yahya tried to argue that the statements of these Jews who questioned the Baptist actually disprove my beliefs. He bases this on the fact that these Jews must have believed that the Christ would be born to human parents since they asked the Baptist whether he was the Christ. In other words, his logic goes like this:

A) The Jews wondered whether the Baptist was the Christ.

B) The Baptist was born to human parents.

C) Therefore, these Jews believed that Jesus would have a natural birth.

In his haste to refute me Yahya only manages to further embarrass both himself and his fellow Muslim apologists.

In the first place, I never based my position on what these Jews believed concerning Christ and the Prophet. Rather, MUSLIMS are the ones trying to use these Jews as evidence that the Prophet is someone distinct from the Christ. I was simply showing them what happens to their argument if they assume that the understanding of these particular Jews concerning these matters were correct.

And since Yahya has now mentioned another problem raised by the beliefs of these particular Jews he is going to have to be consistent and accept that these Jews were not only right that the Prophet is not the Christ but that the Christ would not be born supernaturally from a virgin. This means that not only is the New Testament wrong concerning the Messiah’s virginal conception and birth but Muhammad was also wrong for believing in Jesus’ miraculous birth to a virgin!

It gets even worse. According to Luke’s Gospel John’s father was a priest who officiated at the Temple. Being in such an important position he would not have been able to hide the fact that his wife was barren since it was plain to all that they had no children. Moreover, both the Holy Bible and the Quran state that John was born to his parents at a time when his father had passed the age of being able to impregnate a woman (Luke 1:5-25, 36, 39-45, 56-79; Quran 3:37-41; 19:1-15).

Thus, in light of Yahya’s fallacious logic this means that the Jews must have expected that both the Christ and the Prophet would be born supernaturally to an elderly barren woman and a father who had passed the age of being able to impregnate a woman. Yet since Jesus was born to a young virgin maiden and had no human father he could not be the Christ! Moreover, Muhammad cannot be that Prophet since his mother wasn’t barren and his father wasn’t old!

This leads to the other major problem raised by Yahya’s desperate polemics. Notice that he argued that the Baptist must have believed that the Christ and the Prophet were two distinct persons solely on the basis of his silence, e.g., the Baptist never objected to this distinction nor did he ever assert that Christ and the Prophet are the same entity. Yet by the same token the Baptist never objected to being the Christ on the grounds that he was born to human parents whereas the Christ had to be born supernaturally to a virgin. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that the Baptist knew or believed that the Christ would be supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit to a virgin who never had sex with a man.

Therefore, according to Yahya’s foolish reasoning this means that the Baptist also didn’t believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, but would be born to human parents instead. It further shows that the Baptist believed that the Christ and the Prophet would be born like him, e.g. born to an older barren woman whose elderly husband could no longer impregnate her!

Hence, according to the above factors Muhammad could not be that Prophet, but a false prophet whom the Baptist would have condemned, since Muhammad wasn’t born to an elderly barren woman or a father who couldn’t conceive children. Muhammad also personally believed in Jesus’ virgin birth, which neither the Baptist nor his Jewish interrogators believed!

In light of this do you see just how silly and desperate Yahya’s counter-points truly are?

Let me repeat. I did not nor do I base my position on what these Jewish interlocutors believed concerning the Christ and the Prophet. MUSLIMS LIKE YAHYA DO SO. Therefore, if these Jews were right then that means that the Prophet must be an Israelite and that both he and the Christ must be born through the process of sexual intercourse to an older man passed the age of being able to impregnate women and an elderly mother who was barren. If this is the case then Yahya has provided further evidence that Muhammad is a false prophet condemned by the Holy Bible, the Baptist, and these particular Jews since he wasn’t an Israelite whose parents were way pass the age of having children and erroneously believed that the Messiah was born supernaturally to a young blessed virgin maiden!

In other words, Yahya is now stuck with his fallacious reasoning and must abandon Muhammad as a fraud and deceiver!

Al Qaeda's Schoolyard Massacre

The men in this video were murdered in a schoolyard for attempting to become police officers in Iraq.

*****WARNING***** This video contains graphic violence.