Thursday, 30 January 2014

Sharia Does NOT Allow Sex with Pre-pubescent Girls!

Here are two Christian missionaries propagating hateful lies about Islam. They are trying to convince folk that Islam allows sex with pre-pubescent girls. This is of course a falsehood. In this video you will see clips from scholars refuting these two Christian missionaries who were literally making stuff up. One of the Christian missionaries even went as far as claiming the the Quran, the commentators and the Hadith allow sex with prepubescent girls. Sadly, lies of this nature are common on the internet.

Does Islam allow sex with prepubescent girls? Dishonest men v Scholars

Sharia (Islamic Law) does not allow a man to have sex with a girl who is pre-pubescent. Sharia is based on the Quran and the Ahadith.

In the video above you will see clips from Sheikh Imran Hussain, Dr Yasir Qadhi, Dr Jonathan Brown, Dr Bilal Philips and others to help refute the lies these Christian missionaries were propagating.

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:

Monday, 27 January 2014

Sayyid Al Istighfar - Make Dua For Forgiveness and You Could End Up In Paradise (Insha'Allah)

Here is an amazing dua you could say twice a day. Please do try to make saying this a regular habit.

Shaddad ibn Aws (Allah be pleased with him) relates that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

“The best of forgiveness (sayyid al-istighfar) is to say,

اللَّهُمَّ أَنْتَ رَبِّي لا إِلَهَ إِلا أَنْتَ خَلَقْتَنِي وَأَنَا عَبْدُكَ وَأَنَا عَلَى عَهْدِكَ وَوَعْدِكَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُ أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ شَرِّ مَا صَنَعْتُ أَبُوءُ لَكَ بِنِعْمَتِكَ عَلَيَّ وَأَبُوءُ لَكَ بِذَنْبِي فَاغْفِرْ لِي فَإِنَّهُ لا يَغْفِرُ الذُّنُوبَ إِلا أَنْتَ 

Here is a rough transliteration:

 Allahumma anta Rabbi la ilaha illa anta, Khalaqtani wa ana 'abduka, wa ana 'ala 'ahdika wa wa'dika mastaTa'tu, A'udhu bika min Sharri ma Sana'tu, abu'u Laka bini'matika 'alaiya, wa Abu'u Laka bidhanbi faghfirli fa innahu la yaghfiru adhdhunuba illa anta

‘O Allah! You are my Lord. There is no god but. You created me and I am Your slave. I am on Your covenant and promise as much as I am able. I seek refuge in you from the wrongs I have done. I admit to You all the blessings You have bestowed upon me, and I admit to You my sins. So forgive me, for none forgives sins but You.’ ”

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) then said,

“Whoever says it during the day, with conviction, and then dies that day before night falls will be of the people of Paradise. And whoever says it at night, with conviction, and then dies before day break will be of the people of Paradise.” [Bukhari (6306), Tirmidhi (3393), Nasa’i (5522), and Ahmad (16662)]

More information on this dua:

Sunday, 26 January 2014

Debate Review: Is the Angel of the Lord God? (AnsweringMuslims and Ijaz Ahmed Debate)

The debate can be seen here:

AnsweringMuslims (Anthony Rogers) just runs with a bunch of semantics. One of which being that the definite article of 'the' in 'the angel of the Lord' means the angel is more than an angel. That does not make sense.

Anthony Rogers fails to mention that this is his personal belief and that many, many Christians do not believe the angel of the Lord was God. Rogers speaks as though he is representing Christianity when he is only representing his own personal beliefs. Anthony Rogers offered no proof at all. In a dull presentation he just presented semantics whilst rattling off his script.

One can only imagine how confused new Christians will be after coming across Anthony Rogers who is asking Christians to not only believe in the trinity idea, the man-god idea but now an angel-god idea.

Ijaz Ahmed (Calling Christians) was shocked at Anthony's opening presentation - he clearly was unimpressed. Ijaz Ahmed touched on a history of paganism within and around Christian communities and went for the jugular in singling out this belief of Anthony's to be pagan (worshipping the creation of God). He points out that Anthony's claims come with a belief of a hierarchy within Anthony's trinity which is problematic for Anthony's pre-existing Trinitarian beliefs. Ijaz, does something that Rogers did not, that's to say he introduces the idea that this is a later belief that was popularized by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century and thus not one that emanated from Jesus or anybody of real authority.

Ijaz brought up the concept of agency which negated Anthony Rogers' claims and pulled the foundations from Anthony's arguments. Ijaz brought forward the text of Zechariah 1 where the angel is said to be communicating with the Lord. Ijaz uses common sense to highlight this angel is not God through deductions from the following passage:

12 Then the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years?

13 And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me with good words and comfortable words.

Ijaz Ahmed tackled the claim that the angel of the Lord was worshipped and stated that Anthony's claims were 'intelectually abusive'


Ijaz Ahmed won the debate hands down. Quite what Answering Muslims (Anthony Rogers) was thinking in agreeing to debate his personal view, which is contrary to common reasoning and I hasten to add that many, many evangelical Christians do not even hold, is beyond me.
Overall, Ijaz Ahmed based his arguments on commone sense. Anthony Rogers threw common sense out of the window in order to accomodate his personal belief in the angel of the Lord being God. I think Ijaz's strong understanding of this belief and his willingeness to go toe-to-toe with Rogers even in the narrow-line of argumentation that Rogers employed worked out to be a positive for the truth-seeker as the lazy response and misdirection of 'my opponent doesn't understand' was pre-empted, thus the truth-seeker has a relatively clear run on this topic.

The cross examination was misdirected towards sematics by Anthony Rogers. Most of this debate was not beneficial, largely due to Anthony Rogers' rigid and semantic-laden approach. Ijaz's common sense arguments are beneficial for those who want to ponder on this belief.

In my opinion the debate format was not really in-line with the topic of the debate and the narrowness of the topic. The debate was too long and the cross examinations could have been skipped. The debate format of 15 mins OS, 10 min rebuttals, a further 5 mins rebuttals and then a 3-5 min concluding remarks would have been an easier format for the debate.This format would have kept the debate easier to follow.

I would have liked to have seen Ijaz further use and expand on the more basic arguments against this belief of the angel of the Lord being God:

The Book of Hebrews (which many Christians believe was written by Paul) states that angels are ministering spirits and nor did he say this angel was God (thus even Paul or whoever they believe wrote this NT book did not believe that the angel of the Lord was God):

Hebrews 1:14: Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Jesus (p) nor any other Prophet taught this belief (nobody in the Bible,even in the NT, teaches this). No verse in Christian and Jewish scripture teaches this belief - it's simply an assumption by certain Trinitarians based on their feeling of 'who elese could this angel be' as well as their frustration in not seeing Jesus in the OT.

An angel is a messenger, thus by definition is not God. Ijaz did present this point quite vociferously.

One of the reasons this belief is borne out of is the Trinitarians' puzzlement due to their belief that Jesus existed throught the time of the OT but never showed up - thus this belief in the angel of the Lord being God is an attempt by them to force Jesus into the OT.

This angel is seen to be under the authority of God. This contradicts the Trinitarian view of co-equality. Also common sense dictates that as the angel is subservient to God it naturally means it is not God - this is one of Ijaz's common sense arguments presented to Anthony.

Anthony Rogers will believe Christians have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them yet many, many Christians do not believe the angel of the Lord is God. Why is it that these so-called Holy-Spirit inspired Christians cannot agree on whether this angel is God or not?

Some Interesting Wikepedia for Anthony on the Angel of the Lord

During the Reformation the Angel of the Lord was usually considered a general representative of God the Father, due to several verses stating that no one can look upon the face of YHWH and live.[16]

In Evangelical Christianity, some commentators interpret the phrase "Angel of the Lord" in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to a pre-human appearance of Jesus Christ or Christophany. Others comment the functions of the Angel of the Lord prefigure Christ, and there is no clear mention of the Angel of the Lord in the New Testament because the Messiah himself is this person.[17]
Ben Witherington says: The angel of the Lord is just that - an angel.

Donate to Calling Christians:

More information on the belief of the angel of the Lord being God:

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:

Saturday, 25 January 2014

Had Aisha Reached Puberty? Dishonest Christians (Sam Shamoun and David Wood) v Scholars

Dishonest claims about Islam are rife on the internet. I really hope Christians will start to reign in the dishonest missionaries within their communities who spread such falsehoods about Islam. Here we see two internet Islamophobes, David Wood and Sam Shamoun, having their dishonesty stomped out. I really hope those who donate money to these folk will stop - don't pay for dishonesty.

The Truth about Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha

Peace be on all of the Prophets of God. Ameen.

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:

Are Muslims Allowed to Rape Slave Women? No.

Post 9-11 propaganda against Islam attempts to portray Muslims as hordes waiting to invade the West to butcher, enslave and rape. One such propaganda piece is that 'Muslims are allowed to rape female slaves/captives'. This is simply propaganda which is designed to further the fear-mongering and hatred of Muslims.

Is rape of slave girls allowed?

Rape of a slave girl is an extremely violent act. Yet, Prophet Muhammad(P) condemned even slapping a slave:
Zadhan Abl Umar reported: I came to Ibn 'Umar as he had granted freedom to a slave. He (the narrator further) said: He took hold of a wood or something like it from the earth and said: It (freedom of a slave) has not the reward evert equal to it, but the fact that I heard Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) say: He who slaps his slave or beats him, the expiation for it is that he should set him free.
Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4078
"He who slaps his slave" means both male and female:

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.
Source: Sahih Muslim, Book 015, Number 4082

The second you strike a slave, she is no longer your property and she is free. You now have no rights upon her. Therefore it is impossible to commit this act if you can not even slap nor beat a slave.

If you can not beat then how can you rape!

Is there any instance of rape in the Islamic sources?

Many may not know this, but the Islamic historical references are so vast and tremendous, a western audience has never seen anything the size it:

9 volumes of Sahih Bukhari
9 volumes of Sahih Muslim
11 volumes of Musnad Ahmed
the collection of Ibn Abi Dawood
Malik Al Muwata
800 pages of the Biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq
23 volumes Al Qortobi
Tafsir Ibn Kathir
the History of At-Tabari
The list goes on...

Yet those anti-Islamic critics will have us to believe that tens of thousands of women are being brutally raped! Yet you can not find 1 single instance of this happening in this vast amount of historical data!


So here we see even slapping a slave girl is not allowed. Therefore we realise, it's obvious rape is not allowed as rape entails violence and hurt towards the slave girls (something which is forbidden in Islam).

We also see there is no source (despite the vastness of the Islamic source texts) in Islamic texts which show an instance of rape. Thus it's unfair and disingenuous to present claims of rape.

Forced Sex with Slaves in Islam?

Here the well respected and learned Sheikh Atabek Shukrov Nasafi  confirms raping slave girls is not allowed in Islam. I have produced some bullet points to summarise his presentation below the video.

~ The sheikh could not find anything in Hanafi fiqh which taught forced sex of slaves is allowed.

~ The sheikh cites the Quran (4:36) to show that one should be good to the slaves (obviously rape is not treating slaves well thus rape does not seem to be allowed in Islam)

Worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful [Translation of the meanings of Quran 4:36 by Muhsin Khan]

~ The sheikh also cites Quran 24:33 to show that slave women cannot be forced into prostitution

And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah enriches them of His Bounty. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), give them such writing, if you know that they are good and trustworthy. And give them something yourselves out of the wealth of Allah which He has bestowed upon you. And force not your maids to prostitution, if they desire chastity, in order that you may make a gain in the (perishable) goods of this worldly life. But if anyone compels them (to prostitution), then after such compulsion, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to those women, i.e. He will forgive them because they have been forced to do this evil action unwillingly). [Translation of the meanings of Quran 24:33 by Muhsin Khan]

Thus we see slave women cannot be forced into sex with others (prostitution).

~ The sheikh refers to a narration where Prophet Muhammad (p) repeated (many times) the order to take care of your slaves.

[Obviously, rape would be against such a teaching. Thus one would not imagine rape to be allowed in Islam]

~ The sheikh cites a hadith where we learn the Prophet taught that the slaves should be fed the same food as the slave master, the same clothes should be given to the slave as those worn by the slave-master and the slave-master should not make the slaves do something which is difficult for them - if they are made to do the difficult task the slave-master must help the slave.

[Of course forced sex is much worse than not feeding or clothing the slave to one's own standard - thus one would not imagine rape of slaves to be allowed. Think about it]

~ The sheikh also makes mention of a narration which teaches us not to punish or oppress slaves.

[Of course based on this and the nature of rape one would not consider rape to be allowed]

~ The sheikh cites a hadith where we see burning the slave and/or cutting their noses/ears is not accepted - the slave must be freed if this was to occur.

~ The sheikh cites a hadith in which we see the slaves' emotional feelings are considered as a slave master cannot even call them by the term 'my slave' and a more sensitive term should be used.

[Think about it, if the slave's emotional feelings are considered how can one say rape is allowed when rape not only involves physical pain but also emotional pain - both of which are not allowed in Islam]

~ The sheikh cites a hadith which shows beating or slapping a slave is not allowed

[Rape involves elements of violence - thus how can one say rape of slaves is allowed when violence towards slaves is not allowed?]

~ The sheikh cites a narration where we see killing the slave is not allowed and nor is castrating (chopping off the private parts)

The sheikh also teaches sexual intercourse with slave girls is similar to the manner one has intercourse with their wife (i.e. not like an animal, trying to satisfy the wife during sex, preparing before intercourse).

[Thus one can see that saying rape of slave girls is allowed is unfair]


The basic theme is here, one cannot physically hurt his slave thus rape is not allowed as rape entails traumatic pain. We see that slaves' feelings are not allowed to even be hurt thus further indicating rape is not something which is allowed by Islam. Also note that the sheikh taught that the intercourse with the slave girl is similar to that of with the wife (where the wife's sexual satisfaction is considered too).

We also see there was nothing found in the Hanafi school of jurisprudence which supports the claim of rape being allowed.

Does Islam permit Muslim men to rape their slave girls?

Bassam Zawadi in this article shows rape to be something which is not allowed in Islam. Aside from the theme above Bassam introduces new themes for thought - one of which being the view of some scholars where the slave girl has to convert to Islam before any intercourse can be had with a slave girl who happened to be an idol-worshipper.

His concluding remarks:

Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep our subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact, there is nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls especially since they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims back then did rape their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act and not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion, Islam does not permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.

Overall Conclusion

It's clear that the basic theme in Islam of looking after and not hurting the slaves would prohibit rape.

Islam as a religion does not allow rape of slave girls. Those who are propagating anti-Muslim propaganda on such matters should really desist and check their sincerity.

Invitation to Islam

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother/sister of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Now is the time.

Learn about Islam:

Monday, 20 January 2014

Was Prophethood Exclusive to Israel? - By Shabir Ally

Samuel Green No Response, What About James White?

As far as I am aware, Samuel Green has not responded to the following point raised in an email exchange so how about one of James White's supporters who frequents this blog present this point to him:

Have you ever stopped to think about all those Christians prior to the 19th century discovery of Codex Sinaticus who used to believe the last 12 verses of Mark were inspired by God and part of the Bible (they had similar beliefs about John 7:53-8:11 and that version of Luke 23:34). NOW you and other modern day Christians will claim those Christians of the past believed in forgeries/errors.

You have no guaranty that this will not happen to you in your life time (i.e. a new MSS discovery is made and a passage is denounced as an unauthorised addition).

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. 

Learn about Islam:

Saturday, 18 January 2014

Jaclyn Glenn Urged to Learn Love of Muhammad

A few days ago, atheist YouTuber Jaclyn Glenn posted a video full of hateful vitriol against Islam and Muslims in general. You need not watch the video unless you desire to dislike it as there is nothing to gain from it. However, YouTube lebo2196, takes her nonsense to task in this video that is going viral among Muslims (and non-Muslims alike)! Click on the video below and start watching!!:

Thursday, 16 January 2014

Arabic word for New Testament and Old Testament

The Old Testament     العهد القديم

The New Testament    العهد الجديد

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. Learn about Islam:

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

Tyrese Gibson Fighting Negative Stereotypes of Muslims.

Tyrese Gibson has experienced stereotyping as a African American who is dark skinned. Tyrese visited Abu Dhabi and Dubai and is calling people away from hating Muslims. Tyrese Gibson has got his smile back after visiting Arab and Muslim countries.

Invitation for Tyrese Gibson to Islam

Help get this Message and invitation to Tyrese Gibson please send this to him and have him contact us to accept the invitation.
Not only is this Message ((Worship the Creator and not his creations) Simple and Straightforward and easy to understand and digest but "ISLAM TRULY KILLS RACISM" like nothing else in the world.

Look into Islam it is Truly a way of life sent by the Creator as a Mercy for all of mankind. Start today by earnestly asking your Maker to guide your heart to the truth.

Look beyond the the false stereotypes and lies you've been told about Islam. Judge for yourself tune into TheDeenShow to really learn the truth about Islam and Muslims. Purpose of life ever Wonder?

Islam means submission to the Creator alone. Islam is the belief that there is only One God, whose proper name is Allah, which means the God.

Islam is the same message given to all the prophets, from Adam, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, and finally to the Prophet Muhammad, the last messenger (peace and blessings be upon them). They all brought the same message: worship only God, and stop worshipping human beings and their ideas.

Allah is the name of God in Arabic, Arab Christians use the word Allah.

Become a Muslim(Any Peaceful person who submits to the Creator alone) Now

If you believe there is only One God who should be worshipped, and no one/nothing else has that right but Him, and you believe Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a messenger who brought the same message as all the prophets before him, then you are basically a Muslim.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

ISIS Members Having Dreams of Jesus?

People having dreams and visions showing Jesus is not divine

Russell Brand Exposes Muslim Terrorism Percentage

Monday, 13 January 2014

Cannibal Eats a Muslim man's leg

Horrific footage has emerged of a cannibal eating the leg of a Muslim slaughtered by a rampaging Christian mob in the Central African Republic.
The victim was hauled from a bus, battered and then stabbed before being set on fire in the capital city Bangui, according to the BBC.
In the aftermath of the incident, one of his attackers Ouandja Magloire - who also calls himself ‘Mad Dog’ -  grabbed hold of his leg and then began to devour it.

Read more: 

May Allah give the victim Paradise and may Allah make it easier for the victim's family. May Allah bring peace and safety to this region. Ameen

David Wood of Answering Muslims Challenged to Provide Donation Audit

Here is Ijaz Ahmed's (of Calling Christians and MDI) account of an encounter that he had with David Wood (the Islamophobe from Answering Muslims). Ijaz tells us David Wood resorted to his usual tactic of censorship.

However, I noticed that Ijaz Ahmed challenged David Wood to provide an audit of the donation dollars that he receives from Christians. He seems to be living an easy life - sitting at home on the net arguing and insulting people on FaceBook whilst watching the cash roll in from naïve Christians and right-wing Islamophobic types who have more money than sense.

So Dave, I second Ijaz's challenge. I challenge you to an audit!

Here is Ijaz's latest post:

A recipe for disaster indeed! Moments after David Wood ran away after being called out on his spamming of a conversation between Pastor Samuel Green and I, he’s blocked me on Facebook. As you can see in the image provided, David began to spam a conversation because of a single comment I made in response to one of Samuel’s claims.

After much bravado, name calling, threats (to put me on his blog, been there; done that!), empty rhetoric and straw men, David decided to call a hasty retreat and shy away from facing me again – so he’s blocked me on Facebook! Isn’t this funny? David Wood enters into a conversation of which he’s not part of, spams it with 10′s of comments, insults me, tries to insult my God, tries to bait me into arguing with him, and he’s the one who ends up blocking me. That’s much like a robber who tries to hold you up with a gun, realises he’s firing blanks (an empty threat), and runs away!

That’s pretty much what happened. He showed up unannounced, attempted to get a reaction out of me by spamming and saying as much crude and crass things he could’ve conceived, and when he realised I wouldn’t give him what he wanted, the poor kid gave up. I almost feel sorry for him. All in all, David Wood has once again demonstrated that Christian polemicists are immature, infantile and irresponsible in their behaviour. In their haste to attack and disparage Islam, they are wholly unable to have a civilized conversation and must resort to brute force tactics, strong armed manoeuvres  and rabid ranting to face contemporary Muslim speakers.

David Wood the Voyeur Wearing Women's Lingerie - Self Admitted Cross Dresser
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again, David and his team are not intellectuals, they are not familiar with educational discourse. They are thugs, who are using Islamophobia to gain donation monies for their own personal uses, while riding the Right-Wing Christian train for fame. Good riddance!

Over 40 posts in the David Wood section about David Wood:

Sunday, 12 January 2014

Samuel Green: Do Christians Make a Distinction Between Prophets?

In the debate review of 'Muhammad in the Bible' (Zakir Hussain and Samuel Green) Samuel was rebuked for claiming Christians do not make a distinction between Prophets:
Samuel Green in his opening statement made a claim about Christianity which is untrue. He claimed Christians make no distinction between the Prophets. This is incorrect on 2 accounts

Firstly they reject the last Prophet of God

Secondly, they do make a distinction between the Prophets they believe in. They believe Jesus (p) is a prophet and God. Thus they do draw a distinction between the Prophets they believe in as they worship one whilst not worshipping the others.

Samuel would do well to ponder upon this sincerely.

It appears that Samuel Green persists in making such a claim. I hope this video will help Samuel see the problems with the statement he continues to espouse. I hope Samuel will ponder upon the points made and revise his thinking accordingly.


Samuel Green is also questioned about his contradictory belief. He believes Jesus is a Prophet and God. Yet we realise that being a Prophet by definition means that being cannot be God.

As far as I am aware, Samuel Green has not responded to the following point raised in an email exchange:

Samuel, have you ever stopped to think about all those Christians prior to the 19th century discovery of Codex Sinaticus who used to believe the last 12 verses of Mark were inspired by God and part of the Bible (they had similar beliefs about John 7:53-8:11 and that version of Luke 23:34). NOW you and other modern day Christians will claim those Christians of the past believed in forgeries/errors.

You have no guaranty that this will not happen to you in your life time (i.e. a new MSS discovery is made and a passage is denounced as an unauthorised addition).

Think about this Samuel. PLEASE.

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim. 

Learn about Islam:

From Yasir Qadhi's FaceBook: Ariel Sharon

Ariel Sharon, aka 'The Butcher' for his merciless slaughtering of thousands of people, is dead. We trust that Allah will deal with him as he deserves.

What is truly amazing about this excuse of a human is that his own people, and his own judiciary system, accused him of war crimes and brutality. Multiple times during the course of his military career, his superiors publicly and privately chastis...ed and rebuked him; he was demoted for his murders; over 50 thousand Israelis marched in the streets protesting against his ruthless killing of civilians; he was convicted of bearing personal responsibility in the brutal massacres of Sabra and Shatilla; and his own Israeli courts recommended that he be banned from public office. Yet, despite all of this outcry, he eventually rose to become Prime Minister of his land - the last bastion of apartheid on earth.

What does that say about the morality of such a country, and the convictions of its own people, when they can elect, and honor, someone whom they themselves know to be a brutal mass murderer?

Ariel Sharon is dead, but the thousands of people he was directly responsible for massacring live on as martyrs, and are not dead.

Samuel Green Learns Muslims Cannot Worship Muhammad (p)

Within certain Christian evangelical groups there seems to be a clamber to misrepresent Islam as a polytheistic religion. Here we see a Christian apologist (Samuel Green) learn that Islam does not allow Muslims to worship Prophet Muhammad (p) or any creation of Allah (including Prophet Jesus p).

Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? Learn about Islam: Email:

Saturday, 11 January 2014

A Debate with an Ahmedi (Qadiyani)

A Sunni David vs an Ahmedi Goliath
Imam Sheharyar Shaikh
Sunnis and Ahmedis: Brothers in faith? ? was the topic of a debate that occurred on Thursday, December 19, 2013 at Tahir Hall ? a three-storey complex located in the Ahmediyya neighborhood in the city of Vaughn. Before an audience of hundreds, Ansar Raza (Ahmedi) and Sadat Anwar (Sunni Muslim), dealt with a subject that is usually avoided in public forum.
The event started at 5:48 pm with the Quranic recitation (that ominously ended with “And give us victory over the Kafirin.) and continued until 9:30 pm including a 15-minute Q and A session. A final address by Mubarak Nazir, the principal of the Ahmediyya missionary college, formally concluded the evening.
The audience interest was clearly palpable; those who could not find chairs preferred to remain standing the entire time. Young well dressed Ahmedi volunteers led the incoming audience to their seats without hassle. The event was well organized, timely and had no hooting, jeering, name-calling or untoward disturbances. Not only each member of the audience was provided free Ahmediyya literature, but the evening ended with snacks and refreshments amid a lively, open yet civil discussion on the main differences between the two faiths (The debate can be viewed at accounts/1970046/events/ 2627938
From the onset, the debate was expected to be a slaughter of the Sunni Muslim speaker, Sadat Anwar.  Whereas Sadat has obtained his Masters from University ofToronto and has displayed a casual interest in Ahmedism, his opponent, Ansar Raza is a:
1. Full time Ahmedi missionary since 2004.
2. Lecturer at the Ahmedi missionary college of Canada.
3. Editor of Ahmediyya Gazette, Canada.
4. Host of the weekly Radio Ahmediyya where he fields the toughest questions on Ahmedism.
5. Research scholar with numerous academic papers with a specialist in comparative religion.
6. Author of books and a veteran Ahmedi debater facing Sunni Muslim scholars.
If Sadat managed in broken Urdu, Ansar Raza boasted of knowing Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Gurmukhi, Hebrew, German and French.  (Ansar was certainly not too concerned about Sadat it seemed; he was chewing gum at the podium in the beginning. See Clip I ? 14:41 to 15:25). 
The purpose of the debate was to clarify whether the believers and rejecters of a new prophet after Prophet Muhammad (s) could be brothers in faith. The rejection of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed notwithstanding, the Ahmediyya leadership constantly refers to the Sunni Muslims as their brothers in faith and nonAhmedi Muslims. The Sunnis, who reject Mirza the prophet and consider Mirza’s followers to form a different religious community outside the pale of Islam, consider the Ahmediyya standard referral to Sunnis as brothers in faith and non-Ahmedi Muslims deceitful and devoid of sincerity, to wield them into the Ahmediyya fold. This way, the Sunnis hold, the Ahmedi preachers follow a deceptive course charted by their very founder who slowly and successively paved the road of his “prophethood” into the hearts and minds of his contemporaries.   
As expected, Ansar Raza started the debate by differentiating a sect from a religion. Since to him sects differ only in minor interpretations, not principle tenets, as is the case with the Ahmedis and Sunnis, they must be, he reasons, brothers in faith.  
Ansar explains:
What is the difference between a religion and a sect? Religions differ in principle tenets with each other. If someone has different principles and fundamental tenets, that’s another religion. As far as the sects are concerned, all believe in the same principle tenets, but they disagree or differ in interpretations…but as far as principle tenets are concerned, everybody is agreed. (16:55)
Furthermore, Ansar stressed that the Prophet (s) prophesized that “his ummah would divide into seventy three sects” and since the Ahmediyya are a mere sect, hence they must belong to the ummah of Muslims as brothers in Islam (19:50). Similarly, he saw praying the same prayers, facing the same qiblah, eating the same slaughtered meat (27:30) as pivotal in forming an eternally applicable definition of Islam, and by extension, proving the Islamic brotherhood of the Ahmedis and Sunnis.  
Ansar then concludes:
As I said, all the sects of Muslims, they all believe in these five tenets of Islam, they all believe in five tenets of Iman (does he mean the six articles?), therefore all of them, my brother (Sadat) and everyone sitting here, we are all Muslims and we are brothers.(33:00)
Strangely however when Ansar Raza was pressed about the Lahori Ahmedis, an early breakaway group, to the rest of Ahmedis he abruptly changes his verdict:
…In the beginning I mentioned difference between religion and sect. A religion is something in which beliefs in those fundamental tenets, principle tenets, which are different from others. The belief or the principal tenet of Ahmediyya Muslim Jamaat are fundamentally two: First one that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed alaihis-salat-o salam is a prophet of God and the second that we have the khilafat…These are our two fundamental pillars of our Jamaat. Everyone else, they either reject both of them or one of them, so they are (as a result) not our sect; they are different jamaat. They are different religion. They (Lahoris) are your sect because they agree with you. (1:01)
However if the Lahoris cannot be brothers in faith of the Ahmedis because they reject Mirza and the khilafat as the principle tenets of religion - also rejected by the Sunni Muslims - how then can the Sunnis can be “brothers in faith” of the Ahmedis, but not the Lahoris?
Amazingly Ansar somersaults during the same lecture later and claims:
We think..uhh…we believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed is … prophesized by Holy Prophet sallallaho alaihi wasalam, so if you deny him you are kafir, but that kufr is kufr duna kufr because you do not deny the Holy Prophet sallalahu alaihi wasalam, so you are the mu’min of the Holy Prophet salallahu alaihi wa salam , but you are a kafir of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed alais-salato salam. We don’t kick you out of the pale of Islam…. (17:39)
Excuse me? But you just said that the Lahoris are a “different religion” and “are your (Sunni) sect”. What kind of confusion is this? Furthermore, how does Ansar explain the Qur’an calling those who “differentiate between prophets (i.e. believing in some, rejecting others) as “truly kafirs” (Kafiruna haqqa) (See an-Nisa’ 4:150)? Those who show “enmity” to the prophets become real “kafirin” (al-Baqarah 2:98) in the Quranic parlance. How absurd is it that one can be a believer of one prophet of God and a kafir of another, yet still remain a Muslim? Where is the evidence for this nugget? If so, why not refer to Jews and Christians as brothers in Islam too? Ansar’s logic was truly astounding. At least Mirza was more honest when he said that a “person who doesn’t believe in me after having heard about me is not a Muslim.” (al-Fazl Qadyan Jan 15, 1935).
Yet, the bumbling student of Mirza as Ansar is, he posts an entire video on YouTube trying to prove how the Sunnis and Ahmedis are brothers in faith according to the Quran. See it before its taken down: v=Pog5g154EiQ
But hold on, on February 12, 2012 in another one of his radio programs, our boy Ansar gives the opposite fatwa:
Yeh to bunyadi baat hai keh masih ma’ud kyunke rasulon main shamil hain, isliye unke inkar karne walay bhi ussi tarah kafir hongay jaisay keh kisi aur rasul ka inkar karne walay.
Translation: Its a fundamental matter that because the Promised Messiah is included among the prophets, for this reason those who reject him will become kafirs in the same way as the rejecters of any other prophet.
 When Sadat pointed out these staggering contradictions, Ansar presents an interesting defense: far as quoting me, I am not authority. If I say something that is entirely wrong then Ahmediyya Muslim jamaat is not responsible for that and even I'm not responsible because I can take my words back. I'm not relying upon me and the Ahmediyya Muslim Jamaat is not relying upon me. Any of us do so many mistakes and when we are pointed that we did mistakes, we take our words back. (2:42)
Subhanallah, read Ansar’s qualifications one more time and judge for yourselves whether a foremost scholar/lecturer of Ahmedism in the West and a trainer of the next generation of Ahmedi missionaries should know by now who is/who isn’t a Muslim. And yes, Ahmediyya organization is responsible for hiring a “dimwit” to represent it on a serious subject at its prime venue ? one who surprisingly makes a startling yet arrogant attack against the Sunni Muslim scholars:
Aapke ulama jo baatain karte hain wo quran-o hadis ke yaksar khilaaf hoti hain aur yeh sirf uski ek misaal hai. …jinko aap din ka alambardar samajhte hain, jinko aap alim-e din samajhte hain, dar haqiqat wohi who log hain jo quran-o hadis se yaksar nawaqif hain (@ 15:20  at
Translation: The discourse of your scholars is totally against the Quran and Hadith and this (i.e. not knowing that Ahmedis are brothers in faith) is merely one example of this…Those whom you consider as standard-bearers of religion and whom you consider “scholars” are in reality those people who are totally ignorant of the Quran and Hadith.
Never mind the fact that Ansar Raza Sahib shows off his own knowledge of the Quran by quoting:
We have to seek guidance from the holy Quran that how someone is on either side. And we have to seek guidance from the holy Quran. Allah says that what is the sign of those who are in heaven. Allah says: man yu’minu bi-ayaatina fa-huwa muslimun - those who believe in our signs, they are Muslims. (20:53)
Faulty interpretation aside, there is no such verse in the Quran.
In the end Ansar Raza goes for a personal attack Mirza-style by expressing regret over not knowing beforehand that Sadat was not a scholar and therefore not up to his level for a debate. He says:
I've made a mistake by assuming that he (Sadat) is a scholar…but today he has categorically denied that he is a scholar, so what (do) you expect from such a person who has admitted that he’s not a scholar and its not justified for me…at least I'm a scholar! (10:45)
In reality Ansar had known well who Sadat was months before the debate. It was a poor attempt to hide his own humiliation at the hands of a Sunni “non-scholar”. If so, why then did he approach Sadat for a proposal for yet another debate later in the evening?
Of course Ansar had avoided all the potent issues raised by Sadat Anwar. He
1. Never responded to the hadith (Sunan Abu Da’ud, Book 14, No. 2755) from the authentic sources in which the Prophet (s) after ascertaining that Musaylimah’s heralds truly believed in Musaylimah’s prophethood, told them: ‘I swear by Allah that were it not that heralds are not killed, I would strike off your heads.’ This shows that beyond brotherhood, the Prophet mandated execution for belief in a false prophet.
2. Never responded to the Quran’s verdict on disbelieving or showing enmity against a prophet as becoming “truly kafir” ? which is in agreement with Mahmud Ahmed’s declaration of differing with the rest of the Muslims in the Prophet (s), the Quran, prayer, fasting and “in each and everything” and of Mirza saying that “whosoever doesn’t believe in me, doesn’t believe in Allah and the Prophet (s) either.”
3. Never responded to how “kufr duna kufr” of a non-Ahmedi Muslim disqualifies him for a janazah prayer, marriage relations, being buried in an Ahmedi gravesite (theoretically speaking) in light of the Quran and Sunnah. 
4. Never responded to how he expected Ahmedis to consider Sunnis brothers in faith for rejecting Mirza for his substandard alleged revelations, committing “ash-Shirk al-Akbar”, unfulfilled prophecies/invocations (except one ? of the liar to die from cholera) and personal dishonesty.
5. Never explained why an esteemed scholar such as himself and a chief missionary would dither and doublespeak on the basic issue of the status of someone who rejects Mirza as a legitimate prophet.
In all likelihood I will receive a flood of emails from excited Ahmedis who will attempt to answer all the points Ansar Raza avoided in the debate. The point for them to consider is that if their foremost scholar, researcher, and active missionary cannot say in clear terms that denying Mirza is as much a kufr as any other prophet, what can you hope to take in aqidah from him ? and from a deviant money-making cult that supports him?
In reality the Ahmediyya leadership truly believes that denying Mirza as a prophet is kufr, period. However, by taking the way of deception and doublespeak in order to seem politically correct and religiously all-inclusive, they pursue a path paved by their very founder a century ago. 
Sheharyar Shaikh is the former President of North American Muslim Foundation.  He is currently the Imam of Masjid Qurtabah.
He specializes in Quranic exegesis and contemporary Islamic thought.