Friday, 30 June 2017

Yasir Qadhi Rebukes Robert Spencer and other Right Wing Bigots Attacking the Minister White-Dr Qadhi Dialogue



Many of you are aware that I had a dialogue with James White, a Reformed Baptist minister who has achieved a solid reputation amongst many conservative Christians. (You can find the videos of the debates in the first comment).

What most of you are probably not aware is the severe online character assassination and smear campaigns that Mr White has had to endure from some of his fellow Christians, albeit of the Far Right sector of this country.

Why would any believing Christian be irritated at Minister White, who was allowed into our mosque, and who was very frank about his beliefs regarding Jesus, the Redemption, the Trinity and even the fact that he believes all of us are going to Hell!? (Listen to the entire two-part lecture to get the whole picture, and my response).

Well, apparently, these Far Right individuals truly believe that Muslims are so dangerous, so evil, so deadly, that the mere fact that Mr. White can sit with us, and essentially humanize us as people who believe in our faith, entails that Mr. White is in fact helping and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Al-Qaeda and other groups (albeit indirectly - he is, according to the analysis of such discerning self-professed intellectuals as Robert Spencer, a 'useful idiot').

A few points to make:

1 - For the record, I did not personally receive any negative comments from any Muslim for inviting Mr. White into our masjid (although I'm sure some Muslims online and in other parts of the world might object). From our side, we all understood the need to have a frank dialogue, and that I speak at a Church where most people had never met a Muslim, and Mr. White speak at our mosque in return.

2 - I cannot deny that one of the reasons any Muslim would talk about Islam in front of a non-Muslim audience is to demonstrate the beauty of Islam, and hope that some amongst them find in it the true message that Jesus himself preached. And I know full well that Mr. White's intentions, which he has expressed explicitly, was to hope that some Muslims convert as they listen to him explain Christianity.

3- However, one of my overriding reasons to wish to speak at a conservative Church was quite simply to dispel the utterly nonsensical notion that the majority of Muslims somehow wish to overthrow the government and install Sharia law in America. The truly terrifying reality for all of us Muslims is the evil nature of the hatred that people like Spencer and people of his ilk perpetrate. That hatred, compounded with the fear-mongering of politicians and the false patriotism of a disgruntled group, whips up the popular support needed to pass such dastardly measures as the recent ban on Muslim immigrants from seven countries. If things persist and the situation deteriorates, that hatred will eventually be used to inflict violence and persecute our women and children and us, as the Japanese were here in America, and as other races and religions were at times of persecution in other lands.

I would be happy if any Christian who listened to my lecture converted. But if they choose not to convert, that's their business to decide, and Allah's to judge. It is not my duty to do anything more than speak.

Islamophobic bigots like Spencer have fabricated this myth of us Muslims (less than 1 % of this land!) having desires to subjugate the rest of the 99 % to our laws and religion. Sadly, many innocent Christians believe these lies, and Spencer continues to profit from that fear (See: http://www.thedailybeast.com/muslim-bashing-can-be-very-luc…).

4- So, essentially, what terrifies Spencer and the Far Right bigots who falsely invoke the noble Prophet Jesus' name as they spey hatred is to actually see two very committed people, a Baptist Minister and a Shaykh, agree to disagree, even as they harshly dismiss each other's faiths and theologies, and argue exclusive salvation for their own faiths. That simple civility - the act of agreeing to disagree - is something that these individuals, wallowing in hate and lies and wanting the rest of us to do the same, simply cannot tolerate.

Hence, the vicious attack on Mr. White.

James, if you're reading this, know that I strongly disagree with your views on Islam, and that it pains me deeply, because I genuinely care about you and like you, that you have such negative (and in my opinion incorrect) views about the Quran, and about our Prophet. Yet, that disagreement doesn't stop me from having a genuine respect for your commitment and sincerity. And that is why I will defend you against your fellow Christians as they smear your name and accuse you of all types of falsehoods.

The real idiots are those who wish to provoke fear and whip up hatred between the two largest religions of the world. Disagree all you want, but live and let live. And if you claim to be a follower of Jesus, then as a Muslim let me tell you: you might want to start by practicing what he preached.

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Refutes ISIS and their idea of Caliphate

How Folks Like Robert Spencer Poison White Evangelical Minds

For Christians who say Allah is a Deceiver- a Message from James White

Contradiction: Robert Spencer Runs Away From Muslim Debater Yusuf Ismail





Thursday, 29 June 2017

Some Christians Used the Bible to Support Apartheid

I first heard the “biblical” case for Apartheid at Moore College, Sydney, in the mid 1960’s from the lips of Broughton Knox, the principal, and Donald Robinson, the vice-principal. Twice while I was in college, Stephen Bradley, the bishop of the breakaway Church of England in South Africa, spoke to us students in support of Apartheid at the invitation of Dr. Knox.

The “biblical” case for Apartheid is as follows:

1. The world is predicated on a number of unchanging creation “orders” (i.e. God-given hierarchies, institutions, structures, and relationships), namely, the family, male leadership, the state, work, and race.

2.The Bible teaches that God has created different races. The story of Babel tells us that the separation of people into different races with different languages is God’s will. In Acts 2:5-11, Rev 5:9; 7:9; 14:6; and other passages, the Bible clearly states that God recognizes that people are divided and identified by race. For the Apartheid theologians, difference between races trumped any similarities.

3. Acts 17:26 was possibly the most important text for Apartheid theologians. “From our one ancestor God made all nations (Greek ethnoi) to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the time of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live.” This text was interpreted to mean that God had divided all the people of the world into different nations or races and allocated a region for each. They saw this as unambiguous endorsement of the policy of separating the different races of South Africa and allotting an area to each. Acts 17:26 was to them what 1 Tim 2:11-14 is for complementarians. This one text settled the matter. Those who accepted what it said were obeying God, and those who did not, were opposing God.

4. The government has the right to create laws and citizens must obey them (Rom 13:1-7).

5. No possible rational or moral objection can be made to the idea of different races each having their own geographical area to develop separately at their own pace. (Note the euphemistic language also common in complementarian theology. You would never guess from these words that Apartheid theology gave precedence to whites.)

This theology was backed by virtually every Reformed theologian in South Africa. The unambiguous and overwhelming support of Apartheid by the Reformed churches justified and legitimated the system. One of their most respected theologians, F. Potgeiter, summed up what was believed:

“It is quite clear that no one can ever be a proponent of integration on the basis of the scriptures. It would be in a direct contradiction of the revealed will of God to plead for a commonality between whites, coloured, and Blacks.”

Similarly, an official statement of the Reformed church stated, “The principle of apartheid between races and peoples, also separate missions and churches, is well supported by scripture.” [Source]


American Government Killed More Civilians This Month Than All Terrorist Attacks in Europe Over the Last 12 Years

Every time a terrorist attack occurs in Europe, it is met with an abundance of media coverage, and each victim is mourned by the public on a grand scale. However, the concern for the loss of innocent life appears to be almost nonexistent when the United States kills more civilians in one month than terrorist attacks in Europe have killed in the last 12 years.

A group monitoring the Syrian conflict reported on Friday that airstrikes launched by the United States-led coalition in Syria have killed 472 civilians from May 23 to June 23. [Source]



So You Don't Believe Guys Visting Pubs and Strip Clubs See Jesus but Muslims Do See Jesus?

This was a pretty interesting comment on a video discussing the Christian missionary claim that Muslims in the East are seeing Jesus and converting to Christianity. Churches in the UK and mainland Europe are being converted to restaurants, offices, pubs and clubs al the time? Oh, and whilst we are at it, one church in Hungary turned into a venue which hosts a stripper? A strip club!?

Are these Christians who give donations to Christian missionaries feeding them stories of Jesus appearing to Muslims not asking themselves why Jesus is not appearing to any of these other people?

Think. Don't be fooled by Christian missionary rhetoric. There are people who lie in the Christian missionary circuit, they lie to try and convert people and they lie to secure donations (they have a vested interest in it).



With thousands of churches closing and converted to mosques, I'm wondering, why doesn't Jesus Christ appear to them inside the churches? Maybe he could have stopped it from closing. What a bunch of craps and lies of Christian deception. LOL SMH




Muslims Becoming Christians in Lebanon? Missionary Bus-Start Scandal Bites Again?

Nabeel Qureshi: True Christians Can Perfom Miracles Greater than Jesus!

Response to Converted2Islam Vision of Jesus Claim

Is Mario Joseph, ex Muslim Imam, Telling the Truth?

Gariba International Ministries Scandal

Muslim Thoughts on Ergun Caner's Alleged Racist Comments 'N Bomb'

Prophecies of the Messiah - Reza Aslan

Numerical miracle in Quran

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam


Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Refutes ISIS and their idea of Caliphate



Here are a few resources which have refuted ISIS.

ISIS Refuted by Dr Abdul-Rahman Dimashqia

The Truth About ISIS - Dr Yasir Qadhi

Muslim Response to Yezidi (Yazidi) Girls Rape by ISIS Report

Muslim Imam on Beheading of Journalist, Steven Sotloff (Imam Suhaib Webb)

Muslim Scholar on ISIS and the Jordanian Pilot

Jizya and Reported ISIS Thugs Rape Assyrian Mother and Daughter

Dr Yasir Qadhi and Nouman Ali Khan on Charlie Hebdo Killings

Sh Haitham al Haddad exposes ISIS

Why isn't ISIS a Caliphate?

Russell Brand: Haters of Islam Encourage Muslims towards Extremism

Sharia Law against terrorism

Tuesday, 27 June 2017

How Folks Like Robert Spencer Poison White Evangelical Minds

White evangelicals are also the least likely Americans to know a Muslim.

..survey after survey indicates that white evangelicals are the least excited about their new neighbors. They show the highest levels of support for restrictions on Muslim immigration and the most skepticism toward Muslim Americans.

Much of the fear among evangelicals “is because people do not know Muslims,” said Michael Urton, associate director of the COMMA Network (Coalition of Ministries to Muslims in North America).

According to a PRRI poll conducted last year, 74 percent of white evangelicals, 66 percent of white mainline Protestants, and 63 percent of white Catholics said they saw Islamic and American values in conflict.

Though Muslim Americans are growing in number and prominence, a majority of white evangelicals do not know a single one. In a Pew survey released this year, just over a third (35%) say they have a personal connection to a Muslim.

In a LifeWay survey, slightly more than half of evangelical pastors saw ISIS as a true indication of what Islamic society looks like.

Warren Larson, former director of the Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies, called such beliefs “very damaging for ministry and mission among Muslims.” After 9/11, “quite a few evangelical books came out warning Christians to steer clear of Islam. Fear of Muslims grew substantially,” he said. “I felt such Christian writings often lacked solid research and were deficient in helping fellow believers reach out to Muslims with love and understanding.”

According to the Arab Barometer Survey, a majority of Muslims across 10 countries said they’d be comfortable with neighbors of a different religion and supported their right to practice their faith. In Iraq—where Christians have been expelled by ISIS—82 percent of Muslims were comfortable with non-Muslim neighbors.

“While knowledge about Christianity is low, tolerance of non-Muslims is high across the Arab world,” said Michael Hoffman, of Georgetown University’s Religious Freedom Project.

“Would a Muslim feel the American church is a safe place for them? The answer probably is they would not,” Cashin said. [Christianity Today]




Media Implies Jeremy Corbyn is a Terrorist Sympathiser

Abbas of EF Dawah calls in to a LBC radio phone-in show (6.40 time stamp)

Answering Daniel and (Lizzie Schofield?) On Shaking Hands FAO Pfander Centre for Apologetics

Hamza Myatt Preaching and Teaching Islam at Speakers Corner

War is Deceit Hadith Explained

Is the Facebook Video 'When a Child is Considered a Temptress' a Fake?

Explaining the ‘I have been commanded to fight…’ hadith by Dr Jonathan AC Brown

Muslims and Jews Explain Shomer Negiah: Why Muslim Men Don't Shake Hands With Women (Non Mahram)

Muslim Community Respond to Grenfell Tower Block Fire in London

The Book Without Doubt - The Quran

Refuting Joe Rogan's Comments About Islam

Usama Dakdok: Muslims Must Kill You and Your Wife, Muslims are Demons

Why Islam



Monday, 26 June 2017

Answering Daniel and (Lizzie Schofield?) On Shaking Hands FAO Pfander Centre for Apologetics

This is a response to a gentleman called Daniel who is associated with Jay Smith's Pfander Ministries. He was asking a Muslim why it is forbidden for a Muslim to shake the hand of his female Christian friend/colleague (Elizabeth Lizzie Schofield) as Speakers Corner,


In this video, the Muslims (Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Yusuf), the Jewish lady (Andrea Grinberg) and a Christian preacher (Paul Washer, who laments at our Western society's departure of valuing touch) really help us to value the teaching of not shaking hands or hugging with members of the opposite sex who you have no familial bond with. It's heart warming as well as sad. Sad because this value for touch and guarding against sensual interactions with strangers of the opposite sex has been lost in the West. Watch the video, you'll appreciate and/or understand the Islamic and Jewish teachings on this more.

This video is also uploaded here and here

Jewish prohibition:

The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents.

What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands?

The prohibition of touching (in Hebrew negiah) goes back to the Book of
Leviticus (18:6 and 18:19) and was developed further in the Talmud. A person who observes this prohibition is often called a shomer negiаh. It applied not only to close contact such as hugging and kissing, but also to shaking hands or patting on the back. The practice is generally followed by traditionally observant Jews, both men and women, including Hassidic Jews, and those who are referred to as Haredim. It is also observed within the Modern Orthodox community depending on how traditional the person is. [Chabad.org]

Muslim scholar teaches the prohibition:

It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).

It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.”  [IsalmQA]

Jewish explanation:

To remove any myths, it can be said emphatically that it has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people.

The reason is a rather complex, even Freudian rationale. It is felt that touching a person of the opposite gender is essentially a sexual act, or at least the precursor of a sexual act. While it is true that most handshakes between men and women do not lead to sexual relations and are not even contemplated, sexual relations always begin with touching. It is also true that a handshake does communicate feelings albeit on a superficial level.
It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs.

Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife.
Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch."


А Further Thought

Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other.
[Chabad.org]

Justin Brierley Asked to Question Jay Smith's Integrity

Was Jay Smith making death threat claims up?

The Book Without Doubt - The Quran

Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?

Dawah to Swedish (?) Atheist/Agnostic Wanting to Deport Muslims

Ex Christian: Christian Claims of Miracles Were Fake and Tricks

Refuting Joe Rogan's Comments About Islam



Pfander's Beth Grove Asked to Apolgise to Hashim For Anti-Muslim Abuse: Speakers Corner






Sunday, 25 June 2017

Is the Earth on a Whale's Back Narration Explained - Adnan Rashid

Here's Muslim apologist Adnan Rashid's message on this following his discussion with an ignorant man at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park (the comment is taken from the comment section).

Hello everyone,

I am Adnan Rashid, one of the debaters in the video. Now that none of the Islam-haters are willing to take up our challenge to debate this topic further, I will share few points to do away with this hilariously desperate attempt to attack Islam. Please see the following:

1. None of the Muslim scholars accept the whale story to be true. Just because they document it does not make it true. In fact many of them (including Ibn Kathir) highlighted the absurdity of this story. There is not even one report from the Prophet Mohammad on it. Ever wondered why? If the Prophet did not say it then we don't have to accept it.

2. Even Abdullah bin Abbas did not say this story is from the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him). Rather it was a story he learnt from a Jewish convert to Islam called K'ab al-Ahbaar. This is clearly mentioned in the very article some Islamophobes used to make their point. Why did they hide that information?

See the article here (must read): https://islamqa.info/en/114861

3. Abdullah bin Abbas, despite his authority in Tafsir, was not infallible. He was indeed the greatest scholar of Tafsir who ever lived. He held some erroneous opinions also and occasionally quoted from Jewish/Christian sources. His knowledge and authority, no doubt, is paramount but he never claimed to be infallible. To highlight his fallibility, he pleaded ignorance of certain topics such as he did not know the meaning of the word "fatir" the Quran:

Ibn `Abbas said, "I did not know what Fatir As-Samawati wal-Ard meant until two bedouins came to me disputing over a well. One of them said to his companion, `Ana Fatartuha,' meaning, `I started it.''' (Ibn Kathir Surah Fatir)

He held, until near the end of his life, that muta' marriage (temporary marriage) may be an option in Islam. This was an opinion he was rebuked for severely. He also presented a possible understanding of the crucifixion story, based upon Christian sources, stating it might be another person who was crucified instead of Jesus. Many more examples can be given to show how Abdullah bin Abbas had sometimes used extra-Islamic material to contextualise some of the Quran. Was he always right? The answer is no. Was he always wrong? The answer is an emphatic no. He was mostly correct, especially when he narrated from the Prophet Mohammad directly. Using Abdullah bin Abbas as the only authority in Islam, despite his occasional errors, is the peak of desperation.

4. Islam-haters selectively choose opinions from Islamic literature and present them as the only option. Anyone reading through the tafsir literature will realise that the scholars of Islam expressed opinions and brought supporting evidences to substantiate their claims. They would highlight what opinions they preferred. Amazingly, none of the tafsir scholars, despite mentioning it, took the whale story seriously. In fact many highlighted the fact that this story originates in "israiliyaat" i.e. Judeo-Christian literature. In other words it is not trustworthy.

5. Even if the reports reach Ibn Abbas via an authentic chain (which is not the case in most reports on this topic) the fact remains that he adopted the story from Jewish sources and presented it to contextualise the Quran. The part that the first thing created (before the creation of the heavens and the earth) was pen is authentic and is known from the Prophet Mohammad. Amazingly the whale part cannot be traced back to the Prophet.

6. The fact that Islam-haters ignore all other opinions and focus on only one shows how disingenuous they are. "Nun" is thought to be an ink-pot but the spin-doctors will completely ignore that opinion and jump to the one that sounds most controversial. Hence we cannot trust Islam-haters and their twisted view on Islamic theology.

7. Note how the Islamophobes completely ignore the very beginning of the relevant portion in Tafsir Ibn Kathir where he mentions the fact that these letters are from the "huruf muqatt'aat". We know that all scholars of Tafsir are unanimous that we do not find anything authentic from the Prophet Mohammad on the exact meaning of these alphabets in the beginning of certain suras (chapters), hence we cannot be certain about their exact meaning. That does not mean they do not have a meaning at all, rather we believe God has put these alphabets there for some purpose which remains hidden from us thus far. Some scholars, however, have attempted to attribute meanings to these alphabets and they expressed these opinions in their tafsirs.

8. Islam-haters are usually unable to have a decent discussion and often resort to insults and mockery. They will usually hide behind screens and not show their faces, as they lack confidence in their own content. Haters are good at mocking but bad at having decent academic discussions. So, if they wish to attack Islam truthfully then they should do so in a public debate, where their absurdities and ignorance (or even lies) can be exposed. But they will continue to hide behind screens unfortunately.

Finally, I encourage a decent dialogue with anyone interested in this topic. Not all the details can be shared on a YouTube comment. A face to face discussion is the best way to get the bigger picture :)

Kindest regards. Adnan.





Pastor Steven Anderson: Deacon fired from Faithful Word Baptist Church for rejecting the Trinity


Tyler Baker. TD JAKES. Oneness.

Is Limited Atonement Doctrine Taught Clearer than the Trinity Doctrine in the New Testament?

Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?

Analysing Richard Lucas' Heretical Understanding of Trinity

Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?

Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

Wayne Grudem Shoe-horning Partial Trinitarianism into the Old Testament

Edgar G Foster: Trinity Came After the Council of Nicea

Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?

Why Islam



Saturday, 24 June 2017

Hamza Myatt Preaching and Teaching Islam at Speakers Corner

This is a great piece of dawah, brother Hamza Myatt of EF Dawah goes through misconceptions ad questions a non-Muslim brother at Speakers Corner had about Islam. It’s a controlled, friendly and informative dialogue which will help others who have similar questions about Islam. It's also an example for younger brothers and sisters who want to learn how to do dawah in a loving and authoritative manner. MashaAllah.

The topics discussed:

Islam and misogyny
Islam and hand-chopping (of thieves)
Jizya
Apostasy and Islam
Islam and violence
Trinitarian beliefs about Jesus and violence
How was Islam spread
Christian history
Miracles
Origin of the Quran
Is Islam from the devil?
Embryology and the Quran

David Wasserstein:

Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth. The argument for it is double. First, in 570 CE, when the Prophet Mohammad was born, the Jews and Judaism were on the way to oblivion. And second, the coming of Islam saved them, providing a new context in which they not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity - also in Christendom - through the medieval period into the modern world.

Had Islam not come along, the conflict with Persia would have continued. The separation between western Judaism, that of Christendom, and Babylonian Judaism, that of Mesopotamia, would have intensified. Jewry in the west would have declined to disappearance in many areas. And Jewry in the east would have become just another oriental cult.
Source


Disrespectful Christian Lady Shouting At Adnan Rashid Over Manchester Terrorist Attack

Why it's Important for Muslims to Continually Condemn Terrorism

Pfander's Beth Grove Asked to Apolgise to Hashim For Anti-Muslim Abuse: Speakers Corner

Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?

Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?

Refuting the Claim Petra was the Qibla Before Mecca

Christian Polemicist Jay Smith and The Christian Apologetics Alliance Debunked Again

Blog: Jonathan McLatchie, yes it is Islamophobic to say what you said...

Brief Chat on Andy Bannister's Approach to Evangelism Re Jonathan McLatichie's Facebook

Solas CPC Rebuked by Muslim


War is Deceit Hadith Explained


They cite a saying of the Prophet that “Warfare is deceit (Ar. khida’ah).” But here again they find no support as this reference to military strategy involving tricks has been echoed by practically every civilization in human history. It is most famous on the lips of Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu who stated in The Art of War, “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.” Once again, we find that behind the seemingly scary use of Arabic jargon, there are nothing more than run-of-the mill commonsense notions that every civilization has expressed. [Yaqeen Institute]

Tuesday, 20 June 2017

Jay Smith's Student Lizzie Schofield Believes Jesus Mistreats Women in Deut 21:10-14


Lizzie Schofield of Pfander Ministries as a Trinitarian believes Jesus allowed Israelites to mistreat captive women by marrying them after killing their fathers, husbands and brothers in battle. Of course she was trying to launch a shallow Jay Smith-esque polemic against Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Safiya (which is discussed here) but nevertheless, if she'c consistent, she will as a Trinitarian believe Jesus allowed something which she believes to be ill-treatment of women: 

Deuteronomy 21 (ESV)
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive,11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.


This video is also uploaded here and here

According to the Trinitarian worldview, Jesus: also

~Allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up after a couple of days [Exodus 21:20]
~Ordered the killing of children, infants and WOMEN [1 Samuel 15:3]

My advice to Lizzie, look why not just accept the Islamic view of Jesus? Do you really want to believe Jesus ordered the killing of women and children and allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up within a day or two?

Jay Smith's Pfander Films Asked to Condemn Death Threat to Muslim Apologist

I hope Lizzie Schofield, Sharon Hoy, Sarah Foster, Hatun Tash and Beth Grove will reflect on why Jay Smith's Pfander Ministries and Pfander Films has accrued such caustic and extremist anti-Muslim followers over the years. I know Jay's group has been barred from speaking at certain venues and universities in the past due to being seen as Islamophobic.

Disrespectful Christian Lady Shouting At Adnan Rashid Over Manchester Terrorist Attack

Why it's Important for Muslims to Continually Condemn Terrorism

Pfander's Beth Grove Asked to Apolgise to Hashim For Anti-Muslim Abuse: Speakers Corner



Justin Brierley, do you Believe Jay Smith's "Hyperbole" Excuse?

Are Jay Smith and Beth Grove of Pfander Centre Radicalising People to Hate Muslims?

Refuting the Claim Petra was the Qibla Before Mecca

Christian Polemicist Jay Smith and The Christian Apologetics Alliance Debunked Again

Blog: Jonathan McLatchie, yes it is Islamophobic to say what you said...

Brief Chat on Andy Bannister's Approach to Evangelism Re Jonathan McLatichie's Facebook

Solas CPC Rebuked by Muslim


Friday, 16 June 2017

Is the Facebook Video 'When a Child is Considered a Temptress' a Fake?

Abu Ayoub The person who posted the video and wrote the title is against Islam. So he made the title misleading on purpose. I'm sure if we find where the original video was posted it would say something like, "Mistakes Women make in wearing Hijab." I do admit though using a little girl as a Model was unwise. He should have used mannequins. But it appears he comes from a poor area so he might not have had access to it. And really every other option he had would've been haram. Be it an older woman or a man (LOL) modeling the tight cloths.

[The video was posted on a forum asking whether it was fake or authentic. The above response is from a gentleman based in the Middle East. Folks be wary of propaganda and misleading videos by Islamophobes]

Explaining the ‘I have been commanded to fight…’ hadith by Dr Jonathan AC Brown



Sahriah Courts: Age and Physical Maturity for Sex

Women Crooked Rib Hadith Explained Dr Jonathan Brown

Hadith More Women in Hell Discussed by Dr Jonathon Brown

Jonathan AC Brown on Honor Killings

Jonathan Brown: The Hadith of the Sun Prostrating

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam


Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
 


Thursday, 15 June 2017

Muslims and Jews Explain Shomer Negiah: Why Muslim Men Don't Shake Hands With Women (Non Mahram)


This issue may be brought up in the media or by non-Muslim individuals in the West who consider it to be odd. It's the issue of Muslims not shaking hand with strangers of the opposite sex. Our Jewish friends follow the same practice. They call it Shomer Negiah and they say it goes back to the Bible.

In this video, the Muslims (Nouman Ali Khan and Hamza Yusuf), the Jewish lady (Andrea Grinberg) and a Christian preacher (Paul Washer, who laments at our Western society's departure of valuing touch) really help us to value the teaching of not shaking hands or hugging with members of the opposite sex who you have no familial bond with. It's heart warming as well as sad. Sad because this value for touch and guarding against sensual interactions with strangers of the opposite sex has been lost in the West. Watch the video, you'll appreciate and/or understand the Islamic and Jewish teachings on this more.

This vide is also uploaded here and here

Jewish prohibition:

The rule is that people of the opposite gender do not even touch each other, let alone shake hands, unless they are husband and wife, siblings, or children with parents and grandparents.

What is the rationale for the Jewish prohibition on men and women touching, let alone shaking hands?

The prohibition of touching (in Hebrew negiah) goes back to the Book of
Leviticus (18:6 and 18:19) and was developed further in the Talmud. A person who observes this prohibition is often called a shomer negiаh. It applied not only to close contact such as hugging and kissing, but also to shaking hands or patting on the back. The practice is generally followed by traditionally observant Jews, both men and women, including Hassidic Jews, and those who are referred to as Haredim. It is also observed within the Modern Orthodox community depending on how traditional the person is. [Chabad.org]

Muslim scholar teaches the prohibition:

It is not permissible for a man who believes in Allaah and His Messenger to put his hand in the hand of a women who is not permissible for him or who is not one of his mahrams. Whoever does that has wronged himself (i.e., sinned).

It was narrated that Ma’qil ibn Yassaar said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “For one of you to be stabbed in the head with an iron needle is better for him than that he should touch a woman who is not permissible for him.”  [IsalmQA]

Jewish explanation:

To remove any myths, it can be said emphatically that it has nothing to do with impurity, or with the social or religious status of people who encounter other people.

The reason is a rather complex, even Freudian rationale. It is felt that touching a person of the opposite gender is essentially a sexual act, or at least the precursor of a sexual act. While it is true that most handshakes between men and women do not lead to sexual relations and are not even contemplated, sexual relations always begin with touching. It is also true that a handshake does communicate feelings albeit on a superficial level.
It has been recognized however, that there are many instances in which men and women can and perhaps even should, touch each other. This would apply to saving a person who is facing a life-threatening danger. Members of the health professions may obviously touch members of the opposite gender in the practice of their discipline, as may hairdressers or physical therapists as a necessary component in the practice of theirs.

Traditional Judaism, unlike some other faiths, regards touching as a highly sensual act. It takes the view that it is not only an important part of marital relations, but one that is only permitted in those relations. To shake hands as a casual courtesy and nothing more is the first step leading to the desensitization of sensuality between husband and wife.
Rabbi Baruch Emmanuel Erdstein of Safed, who holds a degree in anthropology from the University of Michigan, states that "the casual touching of members of the opposite gender can only dull our sensitivity to the sexual power of touch."


А Further Thought

Quite apart from the sexual analysis of some commentators, some commentators point out that an individual's body is personal, and at times to even touch is an intrusion into one's personal dignity. According to this approach, a man should not touch a woman, nor a woman touch a man, out of respect for the space of each other as individuals—especially individuals of the opposite gender who should reserve a certain level of privacy with respect to each other.
[Chabad.org]

The Book Without Doubt - The Quran

Did Peter Believe in the Trinity?

Dawah to Swedish (?) Atheist/Agnostic Wanting to Deport Muslims

Ex Christian: Christian Claims of Miracles Were Fake and Tricks

Refuting Joe Rogan's Comments About Islam







Facebook

Muslim Community Respond to Grenfell Tower Block Fire in London



Saudi Heroes Save Lives

Muslim Helps Pastor Detained by North Korea

Grand Mosque of Paris: Role in Saving Jews

British Muslims in Preston Helping to Save Lives

Paris Muslim Hero: Lassana Bathily

Islam in Action: Muslim Gives Fruit and Water to Homeless

Muslim gives his jacket to homeless guy - Good News Muslim Story

Muslim Group iERA Helping Children's Hospital