Sunday, 30 May 2010

Response to "Who Does Allah Pray To?"

Some Christian critics who know basic Arabic are claiming the Quran teaches us that Allah prays. They normally use this argument in an attempt to counter and pacify the Muslim use of the Bible which points to Jesus praying (Matthew 26:39).

Rather than focussing on Christianity let us look at the issue in hand; does Allah pray according to the Quran?

The claimants claim the Arabic translation (2:157, 33:43, 33:56) means Allah prays. However, once we consult the EXPERT translators, the lexicon, the commentaries and early Muslim clarification we realise the claimants are completely ignorant of word usage and thus incorrect.

Through the course of this article you will realise it really is a case of the Christian critic against the experts in the field, the experts do NOT agree with the Christian critics!
The structure of the article is thus, there will be a presentation of evidence against their claim based on different authorities:

*Expert Translators
*The Lexicon (Authoritative Arabic Dictionary)
*Expert Commentators
*Early Muslim views

After this evidence is passed over there will be a specific address (refutation) to a vocal critic’s (Sam Shamoun) written work in the interest of thoroughness. I chose Shamoun’s work as he seems to be the most vociferous in claiming Allah prays and is a source material for any subsequent claimant.

The Expert Translators (Masters in the Arabic language) disagree with the Christian critics

There are three Quranic verses which the claimant uses to make their claim. These three verses are translated below by THREE DIFFERENT translators; do these experts in the Arabic language think the Quran teaches us that Allah prays? No, you can see for yourself:

Quran 2:157

Dr. Mohsin :
They are those on whom are the Salawât (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.

Pickthal :
Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.

Yusuf Ali :
They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Lord and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance.

Quran 33:43

Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allâh to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islâmic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.

Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you, and His angels (bless you), that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and He is Merciful to the believers.

Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers

Quran 33:56

Dr. Mohsin :
Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels (ask Allâh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salât[] on (ask Allâh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islâmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As¬Salâmu 'Alaikum).

Pickthal :
Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.

Yusuf Ali :
Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him, with all respect.

The stubborn Christian critic, upon seeing these translations, will say these translations are produced by Muslims so we do not trust them. This is all rather silly but we shall indulge their argument further.

Well let us look at how the Christian missionary JM Rodwell translated the verses in question. Let us look at how AJ Arberry translated the verses in question, AJ Arberry is endorsed by the Christian MISSIONARY Robert Morey [1].

To further highlight the expert opinion we can bring the opinion of the CHRISTIAN missionary Rodwell (who is a translator of the Quran), does he think the Quran teaches Allah prays? No!

Rodwell agrees with the expert (Muslim) translators above. The same applies to AJ Arberry, he too agrees with the translations above and the same applies to George Sale:

Quran 33:56

George Sale 33:56
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: O true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation.

John Medows Rodwell 33:56
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet! Bless ye Him, O Believers, and salute Him with salutations of Peace.

Arthur John Arberry 33:56
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace.

Quran 33:43

Arthur John Arberry 33:43
It is He who blesses you,  and His angels, to bring you forth from the shadows into the light. He is All-compassionate to the believers.

George Sale 33:43
It is He who is  gracious unto you, and his angels intercede for you, that He may lead you forth from darkness into light; and He is merciful towards the true believers.

John Medows Rodwell 33:43
He blesseth you, and His angels intercede for you, that He may bring you forth out of darkness into light: and Merciful is He to the Believers.

Quran 2:157

AJ Arberry 2:157
Upon the rest blessings and mercy from their Lord and those---they are the truly guided

JM Rodwell 2:157
On them shall be blessings from their Lord, also mercy: and these! They are rightly guided

George Sale 2:157
Upon them shall be blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they are rightly directed.

So there they have it. It is NOT a Muslim conspiracy theory. The Christian critics should base their arguments on facts rather than conspiracy theories. Furthermore, if they are still in doubt why don’t they consult Lane’s Lexicon?

The Lexicon: Does the authoritative dictionary agree with the Christian missionaries? No.

Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.

Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)

From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].

Nowhere does Lane agree with the critic’s claims but Lane agrees with the expert translators (mentioned above). So the Christian critic is quite simply bringing stuff of conjecture to the table and has no in depth knowledge of Arabic word usage.

Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”

Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too. So lane the expert is agreeing with the Muslim translators but disagreeing with the critic’s unauthorized claims

So the experts in the field of Arabic disagree with the Christian critic’s bizarre claim. Thus it is clear Allah does not pray and the Muslim expert translators are correct. If there is still a stubborn critic holding onto his/her claim then they can view the commentary material.

Do the Expert Commentators Agree with the Christian critics? No.

If the critic was serious about their claim they would have consulted the commentaries as these reflect the early Arab (Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs) opinion related to word usage.

Let us open up Al-Tustari’s commentary (2:157), in fact al-Tustari explains all three verses in question and DISAGREES with the Christian critic.

Al-Tustari explains the word used in 2:157 (“al-salawat”):

“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord”

So we realise the verses in question does not refer to God (Allah) praying. Thus the translators are backed up by the early Muslim expert(Al Tustari). Al-Tustari goes further and explains the word used in the two other references (33:43 and 33:56) as blessings referring to forgiveness:

“As for its meaning of 'forgiveness', it is referred to in His words, Exalted is He, He it is who blesses you [33:43], meaning: 'He forgives you', and [again in His words]: as do His angels… [33:43], by which is meant: 'They seek forgiveness for you'. In the same vein are His words: Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet [33:56], which mean: 'Truly God forgives the Prophet, and the angels seek forgiveness for him.' [3]

So Al-Tustari explained these verses and the related word usage hundreds of years prior to the Christian critics coming on the scene with their broken Arabic looking to re-interpret sources according to their missionary agendas. The fact remains, Al-Tustari (the expert) does NOT agree with the critics; he did NOT believe any of the three verses (2:157, 33:43, and 33:56) taught Allah prays. Who are these critics to disagree with the early Muslim commentator?

If by chance there is STILL a critic espousing their claim then they can view early Arab thought concerning the verses in question.

Do Other Early Arab Experts Agree with the Christian Critics? No.

To be totally comprehensive let us open up another Tafsir master piece. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir literature also proves the critics are clearly in error as it points to other early Muslim (Arab) experts. When we read Ibn Kathir we note Allah’s Salah is explained:

“Al-Bukhari said: "Abu Al-`Aliyah said: "Allah's Salah is His praising him before the angels, and the Salah of the angels is their supplication.'' “ [4]

So we realise Abu Al-Aliyah did not believe Allah prayed! The same goes for At-Thawri and other scholars, neither At-Thawri or the other scholars thought the Quran taught Allah prays:

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]

Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.

None of these experts is claiming the references mean Allah prays and these experts knew the language remarkably well. In fact Lane uses these experts as source material for his lexicon! Who are these Christian critics to argue with the early Muslim (Arab) experts in the Arabic language?


The copious evidence presented showing the critics to be wrong is sufficient for anybody of a reasonable disposition to realise the Quran does not teach Allah prays.

Essentially the audience, is asked to choose between the Christian critic’s shoddy scholarship or the Muslim expert translators, the dictionary, the commentators and the early Arabs. It is a no brainer; clearly authority is correct and the agenda based missionaries are mistaken.

A Response to A Christian Critic

In the interest to deliver a comprehensive piece of work to the reader I have appended an article addressing the shoddy scholarship of the chief supporter of the Christian missionary claim. The gentleman, ironically enough, has a history of bringing his own unauthorized Quran translations to the table; previously he was found to have translated a Quranic verse in order to present Islam as a religion which allows bestiality! [5]

Nevertheless, his work shall be quickly combed through in a scholarly fashion, his work is entitled:

Islam and the prayers of Allah An examination of the worship and praise which Allah performs (by Sam Shamoun)

Yahya Snow responds:

Shamoun’s deceptive ways on 2:157

Shamoun wastes no time and immediately claims:
“We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad”

The question is does Shamoun take into account the fact that Y.Ali, Pikthal, Hilali/Khan, Arberry, Rodwell and Sale all disagree with him? No.

Shamoun presents his OWN translation for the 2:157, here it is:

“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy (rahmatun), and it is they who are the guided-ones. S. 2:157”

Why does Shamoun not cite a translator to back him up? It is because all the translators (even Palmer) disagree with him!

Shamoun translates “salawatun” (salawat) as “the prayers”. Shamoun would have saved himself from the embarrassment if he had consulted an EXPERT, Al-Tustari has already (hundreds of years prior to Shamoun) defined the word used in 2:157 (“salawat”):

“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord” [3]

To further pour refutation and authoritative admonishment on Shamoun’s shoddy translation we can look to Palmer and Rodwell (as well as the Y.Ali, Pikthal and Hilali/Khan). None of these translators agree with Shamoun’s shoddy translation.

A.J Arberry translates is as “blessings” whilst E.H PALMER translates is as “blessings” too:

“These on them are blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they it is who are guided.” (EH Palmer 2:157)

There is a real significance to Palmer which highlights the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Sam Shamoun. This shall be elaborated upon.

However, Shamoun does not even bother to inform his audience he simply made his OWN translation of 2:157. He does not inform them why he did this either! This is a misdirection of the audience but it gets worse. As Shamoun for the other two references (33:34 and 33:56) uses E.H. Palmer’s translation of the Quran.

Why did he not use Palmer’s for 2:157? It is obvious, because Palmer disagrees with Shamoun and translates the verse the same vein as the Muslim translators.

Sam Shamoun is playing games of inconsistency and partial information in order to misdirect the audience. If Shamoun was of a consistent scholarly substance he would have cited many translators (as I have done) or at least stuck with one translator for all three verses. Shamoun does not do this. He employs Palmer for two of the references but not the third as Palmer does not agree with Shamoun on 2:157, hence why Shamoun makes his OWN translation up and does not even announce this to his audience (readers).

Shamoun’s desperation in making his OWN translation of 2:157 highlights no expert translator agrees with him; if he had a translator who agreed with him he would have cited him or her. This is depraved deception and disrespectful to the unwitting reader.

Shamoun’s lack of expertise on 33:43 and 33:56

These two references can be discussed simultaneously as the relevant word in both Verses is derived from the same Arabic word (“salla”)

Shamoun brings E.H Palmer’s translation for both:

He it is who prays (yusallee) for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43 Palmer

Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer

Shamoun does add the transliterated Arabic words (bracketed) to the translation. It would have been responsible to note this was the doing of Sam Shamoun but Shamoun does not do the scholarly thing. However, this is not such a big issue.

Does Shamoun mention to his audience that the other translators (including the Christian missionary Rodwell) all translate these two verses in question differently from Palmer? No.
Is Palmer’s translation of 33:43 and 33:56 convincing?

So effectively it is a case of Palmer translating it as “pray” but the other experts disagree with Palmer and teach it to it refer to “bless” (or “gracious”) and NOT “pray”:

Quran 33:43

Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you..

Pickthal :
He it is Who blesseth you..

Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you..

Arthur John Arberry
It is He who blesses you.. 

John Medows Rodwell
He blesseth you..

George Sale
It is He who is gracious unto you..

Quran 33:56

Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW)…

Pickthal :
Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…

Yusuf Ali :
Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet…

Arthur John Arberry
God and His angels bless the Prophet...

John Medows Rodwell
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet..

George Sale
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet..

Now, if Shamoun was scholarly he would have looked into how Palmer translates the related word (“salawat”) in 2:157. Palmer translates the related word as “blessings” and NOT prayers. Thus Palmer is not only isolated and in disagreement with the other translators but is INCONSISTENT in his translation which suggests and error on the part of Palmer.

So it would be unscholarly to use Palmer’s translation in this regard (33:43 and 56) to support a claim. However, our friend (Sam Shamoun) ignores principles of balanced scholarship and proceeds to use Palmer to support his claim.

If Shamoun is still unwilling to accept Palmer’s error then we can take the issue to Lane’s Lexicon.

Edward William Lane is an expert in the Arabic language. Lane explains the word (“salla”) used in the two verses (33:43and 56). Surely Lane will settle it once and for all.

Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.

Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)

From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].

Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”

Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too [2]. So Lane, the expert, is agreeing with the all the other translators but disagreeing with Palmer.

So we realise Palmer is not only inconsistent but not supported by his fellow translators nor the authoritative lexicon.

This points to Palmer being in error, thus it would be unscholarly of Shamoun or any other critic to use Palmer’s error in order to build their claim.

To further show Palmer is in error we can consult the early Muslim expert Ath-Thawri and other scholars:

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]

Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. Al-Tustari disagrees with Palmer as well [3]. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.

It is also fair to note Palmer is not to blame for this Christian critic claim as the critics manipulate and take advantage of Palmer’s error and inconsistency. As all the other experts and source material disagree with Palmer, I am of the view, if Palmer had a chance to revise his work he would change his translation to agree with the other translators and Lane’s Lexicon.

The more concerning element is the refusal of the Christian critics (including Shamoun) to portray the full picture to their audience. Agendas will be agendas!

Shamoun Brings Irrelevant Hadith Literature to the Table or Misrepresents it Completely

Shamoun, again wastes no time and states:

“The hadith reports also mention Allah praying for people”, he then brings a translation of a Hadith:

“1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Allah AND His angels AND the people of the heavens AND the earth, EVEN the ants in their rocks AND the fish, PRAY for blessings on those who teach people good." [at-Tirmidhi] (Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)””

Shamoun, is extremely unscholarly here as at-Tirmidhi has ALREADY EXPLAINED the meaning concerning “pray” related to Allah. At-Tirmidhi clearly does not think Allah prays as he explains the term:

Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. [4]

Thus the word “pray” is concerning Allah sending Mercy upon the recipient. That is all, it does not refer to Allah literally praying. So Shamoun should cross reference the Arabic phraseology before presenting such material, that way he would not look so unscholarly.

As we have seen previously, Lane’s Lexicon, Al-Tustari and the expert translators disagree with Shamoun’s rendering of the word.

Shamoun Butchers Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir Literature

Shamoun swiftly moves onto his translation of Ibn Kathir, he writes:

“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him [saying]: “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say [to them] ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets and my messengers,’” and Allah then sent down on his messenger: “Allah and His angels pray…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; translated from the Arabic online edition; bold emphasis ours)”

Shamoun is unscholarly again, not only has Lane’s Lexicon explained the word in question (“salla” “pray”) but Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the SAME chapter explains the verse via at-Tirmidhi:.

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]

So it is clear Ibn Kathir did not think “pray” (salla) meant what Shamoun tries to intimate. The real question is why did Shamoun translate his own bit from Ibn Kathir BUT ignore the explanation of Allah’s Salah within the SAME chapter of Ibn Kathir?

It is obvious, Shamoun wanted to misdirect the audience. The fact remains, Ibn Kathir’s EXPLANATION of Allah’s Salah is from the same section as the passage Shamoun translates so there is NO chance Shamoun did not view the explanation, thus it is clear Shamoun is trying to dupe the audience.

Shamoun Opening up the Dictionary

Shamoun then presents a basic translation of the words in question:
“What makes this rather amazing is that according to the Islamic sources the words salawat and salah refer to worship and glorification:

Ibn Al-Atheer in his highly acknowledged dictionary of the Arabic language, 'Al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Athar' has explained "Sala'h" as follows:

'Al-Sala'h' and 'Al-Salawaat': used for a particular kind of worship. Its literal origin is supplication (prayer). Sometimes, 'Sala'h' is referred to by mentioning any one or more of its parts. It is also said that the literal origin of the word is 'to glorify' and the particular worship is called 'Sala'h', because it entails the glorification of the Lord. (The Meaning of the Word "Sala'h", May 19, 2001; bold emphasis ours)”

Shamoun simply presents the standard meaning of the words used in everyday situations but does not present the meanings of words in relation to Allah. Thus Shamoun hides the in depth analysis of the word usage.

Al-Tustari has ALREADY taught us “al-Salawat” refers to a bestowal of Mercy when it refers to Allah (as in 2:157) and NOT what Shamoun suggests. Why did Shamoun not give the fuller picture?

As for Salah ,this was explained in IBN KATHIR, it is worthy of note to mention (again) that Shamoun has READ IBN KATHIR’S Tafsir related to Salah, why did Shamoun not present it? It is clear as it scuppers Shamoun’s claims. Thus Shamoun is not after honest scholarship but is after deception.

From Ibn Kathir:
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: "This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]

So Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims KNEW Allah’s Salah did NOT mean Allah prayed! It referred to his Blessing of Mercy ( Al-Tustari: a bestowal of Mercy)

“Salla” and “Salawat” with Sam Shamoun

Shamoun also gives examples of the words “salla” and “salawat” and tries to argue his case BUT FORGETS to mention his examples are not linked to Allah. The experts including Lane all teach that the words in question have a different meaning once linked to Allah. It really is getting repetitive now.

Thereafter Shamoun drifts of topic he starts talking about praises and referring to work of those who counter him. I feel what has been said here is sufficient. If you feel the rest of his article requires attention then please let me know (or alternatively if somebody else has countered Shamoun’s article the let me know as I can link to it, God Willing).You can read Shamoun’s article in full here:


Shamoun uses slight of hand and audience misdirection by withholding the full picture from the readers. Effectively Shamoun disagrees with the expert translators, Lane’s Lexicon, Tafsir writers and early experts in the Arabic language. Does Shamoun bring any proof to show all these authorities to be wrong? No.

The facts remain Shamoun has no authority and is basing his views on conjecture and wishful thinking. It seems as though Shamoun simply puts this claim out there because he is frustrated with Muslims pointing to the Biblical account of Jesus worshipping as evidence against Jesus being God. So Shamoun seems to be motivated by insincere goals.

If he really believes God worships then that is down to him but in his frustration at Muslim objections to his belief (that God worships in the Bible) Shamoun should not overstep scholarly bounds and make half-hearted attempts to make the same claim against God in the Quran.
Shamoun, seems unscholarly, deceptive immature with his claim.

So does Allah worship? Well, the experts say NO.

Article by Yahya Snow


[1] Robert Morey’s The Islamic Invasion, Christian Scholar Press, 1992 pg 21
[2] An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872, pg 1720
[3] Tafsir Al-Tustari, (2:157), trans. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler
[4] Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Surah 33), Dar as-Salam Publishing

Friday, 28 May 2010

Muslim Condemnation of the May 28 Terrorist Attacks against the Ahmadis in Pakistan

Some extreme Christians are trying to use this attrocity to attack Islam. We should never bend to their insensitive propaganda and we should always try to be as balanced as possible. Here is a Muslim (Farhan00) condemning the attack

Nabeel Qureshi, Please Stop and Think

An incident of horror took place in Pakistan and many of Nabeel Qureshi's people (Ahmadis) were killed. Seventy (70) people have been killed and many others have been injured.

News report: The assaults were carried out by at least seven attackers, including three suicide bombers, and several worshippers were held hostage, officials said. One gunman fired his rifle while positioned atop a minaret.

However, it seems as though Qureshi is using this to fuel his anti-Islam agenda

Qureshi tells his audience:

"I have heard word from my family; some of my distant relatives (whom I did not know) have been killed. The congregation at my parents' mosque is rife with mourning over the loss of loved ones"

Then (strangely enough) immediately goes on the offensive against Islam:

"This is Islam, ladies and gentlemen. Make no mistake about it. From the very beginning, Muslims marched against Muslims and slaughtered each other. I'm not talking about power-mongers hundreds of years after Muhammad hijacking Islam for personal profit. I'm talking about Ali, Muhammad's closest cousin and one of the four rightly guided caliphs, marching against Aisha, the wife of Muhammad, just 24 years after Muhammad. 50,000 Muslims met each other in battle that day, and 10,000 were slain. Muslims have been killing each other ever since.

Massacre, violence, and brutality from its very inception. This is the enemy we are fighting."

It seems the blood is still wet and Qureshi wants to use it to fuel his agenda against Islam. Have a bit more compassionate thought rather than thought of exploitation, Nabeel. Do you really think your family want you to be blogging an anti-Islam agenda right NOW???

I am not well versed with Pakistani politics and sectarian violence in the country but whenever I hear of such incidents of horror I stop for a moment and feel saddened, I pray for the families of those involved and pray for an end to such violence. May Allah put an end to such violence. Ameen.

Nabeel needs to re-evaluate his priorities; is having a dig at Islam more important than dignity and sensitivity?

The same applies to the insensitive Muslims on the internet who use the abuse scandal to attack the Church and Chrisitanity whilst having a disconnect from any regard of the suffering the victims endured and still are enduring.

Faith teaches us to be more mindful of sensitivities. Let us do this and let us put our agendas to smear people's faith to one side.

I appreciate it is a tough time for Nabeel but this is not the way to vent emotion and stress. I hope David Wood (or Nabeel) sees sense and pulls the post in question as it offers nothing positive.

May Allah help the differing communities in Pakistan get along better. May Allah support Nabeel's family at this time of mourning.

(If any Ahmadi organisation wants help in raising financial help for those injured and the families involved please contact me; I will arrange a collection in London, England, other Muslims will help in doing so...our thoughts are with the families of the victims...note if any demostrations against the Pakistani government are arranged by the Ahmadi community in London I shall attend too in order to support them. This community does not deserve this)

***UPDATE:Nabeel Qureshi's Latest Deception***
See here for Nabeel's intellectual dishonesty regarding the Quran

See the Nabeel Qureshi section for more about Nabeel Qureshi's past utterances and actions:

Nabeel Qureshi's group at court in Dearborn 2010:

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

An Appeal to Dr James White and his Audience Concerning Sam Shamoun's Misinformed Input

Sam Shamoun called into The Dividing Line (White's radio show) and presented misinformation by claiming the Quran teaches us Allah worships. Of course, White could not challenge him on the issue but White and his audience have real food for thought presented to them concerning Shamoun's lack of reliability. It is left in the capable hands of James White to take this issue seriously as this affects the reputation of White's ministry.

White would be well advised to put in place precautionary measures to make sure Shamoun is not presenting misinformation on the show in the future; it would alos be beneficial and responsible onthe part of White to rectify the dubious material.

Related article is here:

Thursday, 20 May 2010

David Wood Continues to Attack Yahya Snow...A Response

Qureshi's rebuke of David Wood:

Wood is now slicing and dicing comments in order to attack Yahya Snow...David, show the entire comments rather than snips that suit your agenda...ever heard of context:

" really want to pick a fight with me"
"In any case David...if you want to play it your way without regard for me...then I will play it my way"
"Watch out for the final two vids...i have given you chance after chance David"
"If you want to talk about shutting down debates...then wait for the next uploads...they will be the final vids on this matter AND then we shall see David"
"Ive lost patience with good nature only extends so far"
"trust me...if the final two vids are uploaded there will be no turning back"

David Wood misleads his audience into thinking it is only Yahya Snow (and RM) who oppose David Wood...why did he not bother to tell them that his long term FRIEND (F.Qureshi) agrees with the shut down of debates?

Why is Wood trying to shun Qureshi's appeal and article (and even keep it from his audience)? Qureshi wants Wood to apologize and self-reflect...Qureshi and I are both wanting David Wood to improve his behaviour as his behaviour is unacceptable!

Why...ask yoursel why...Nabeel, Negeen, Minoria etc...Wood simply tried to use Snow as a scapegoat (unfairly)...but this goes way deeper than one man objecting to Wood's behaviour

His behaviour has been described as "obnoxious" by a respected is time to sit Wood down and let him know he needs to review his behaviour by putting aside his ego!

So David...not only is your friend (Qureshi) after an too is Yahya Snow...the list is growing
Is Wood behaving in a Christian way? Qureshi does not think so

Response to Draw Mohammed Day

The Draw Mohammad Day is not sanctioned by respectful adults
This video and campaign was created by and in response to the 20th of May, event called "draw Muhammad day".

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

David Wood's FRIEND (Qureshi) Rebukes David Wood

David...censoring both Farhan and Yahya is simply pointing to your unreasonable nature and vindicating Sheikh Awal's decision to cancel a public debate with you

Think about it...

Qureshi is your friend and has know you for SIX years

Yahya Snow has been defending you for a good few months (behind the scenes)

You are simply throwing dirt in the faces of those who care

David Wood Wastes my Time AGAIN

He accuses me (Yahya Snow) of sabotaging his debate. He also questions my honesty and accuses me of being a bloke called "Santos".

I had NOTHING to do with Wood's opponent cancelling...but Wood has gone off on a tirade against me based on his conjecture. David Wood is transfixed on accusing Yahya Snow (myself) of ruining his "debate series" and partaking in "mild terrorism"??!!??

He has gone down the unreasonable path of avoiding communication full stop. I guess the sheikh who has cancelled the debate is being vindicated as Wood's behaviour and integrity is thrown into question yet again :(

I asked him to PM me for clarification...he refuses to do so as he wants no further communication...why in the world make accustaions and ask questions of me if you don't want to know of my answers? Unreasonable and illiogical!

Wood, initially accused a group named the MDI...but for some reason exonerates them and decides to use me (Yahya Snow) as the scapegoat and blame me for the cancellations. I never knew I had so much influence! :)

He accuses me of CENSORSHIP...yet I had NOTHING to do with it...yet I have a whole host of individuals complaining to me of David Wood CENSORING add to the irony, Wood has CENSORED me from his blog...go figure!

He asks questions concerning the MDI group...well, if he really wanted answers he would email the group and would email me...but he doesnt email me...he simply throws unsubstantiated claims out and leaves it at that :(

Wood loses more and more credibility with each comment and posting

A CENSORED comment I tried to post to aid Wood's understanding...he disallowed the comment:

With regards to Wood's update...

If he had bothered to check he would note that the sheikh had cancelled the debate prior to my post

Somebody else contacted the sheikh BEFORE I could even the sheikh's cancellation was nothing to do with me...though I support his decision.

However...if ANYBODY (Muslim/Non-Muslim) has an issue with my blog post...they are free to contact me and discuss it in a rational fashion.

I do not want to dwell on this subject...I hope this is enough for those who wanted more info

If not...feel free to contact me...via YouTube or email


A response to Negeen, which was also CENSORED by Wood:


I apologise if it has affected your personal plans BUT this has nothing to do with me

I support the sheikh's can still view the debates between White and the Muslim guests

Wood has censored MANY things in the fact, he even censored the video addressing your conversion story...he went to great lengths to censor that .

Note...Wood is not being censored but REBUKED by the sheikh

He (Wood) is free to post on YouTube and Blogger...quite simply a respected Muslim has seen sharing a podium with Wood to be irresponsible

As simple as that

Feel free to contact me


God bless all

NOTE: If a further post is required I will make a further posting (and/or an audio presentation to Wood's audience in order to get the FACTS out to them to counter Wood's conjecture...however I would like to get back to my refutation work ASAP

Thanks...feel free to contact me via email or YouTube

Sheikh Awal Cancels the Debate with David Wood

This decision of Sheikh Awal's had nothing to do with the blog posting below as the posting in question was piblicized AFTER the sheikh's decision.

I feel the sheikh made the right decision and showed himself to be a man free from self-aggrandizement and ego

An Appeal to Reason before Debating David Wood or Sam Shamoun

An Appeal to Good sense and Responsibility by Yahya Snow

A debate series has been organised in Michigan involving Christians and Muslims. I am pro-dialogue and discussion but the Muslims involved are Muslims who have high standings within their respective communities, therefore these Muslims have responsibilities which span considerable lengths both in an interfaith capacity as well as within their own faith.

The itinerary of the debate shows Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal is due to debate Sam Shamoun and David Wood.

I feel prior to accepting this debate the Sheikh (Ahmed Mohammed Awal) had not fully researched his opponents nor considered the implications of debating them.

David Wood

A number of Muslims have already shunned David Wood due to his unacceptable behaviour. Moreover, David Wood has done absolutely nothing to rectify his faults and has recently depicted material which is both unchristian and offensive to Muslims as well as other groups. This material included nudity (from the submission video) as well as religiously inflammatory material from the South Park show.

A responsible Christian (and a responsible debater) would not have showcased such material. Sadly, Wood tried to defend his actions; one of his more peculiar and unconvincing defences was under the guise of “art”.

A number of links highlighting Wood’s unscholarly and irresponsible behaviour:

Wood irresponsibly offending different religious groups for no reason whatsoever as well as displaying nudity which is unchristian in itself:

An appeal to Wood’s partner (Which Wood censored…surely he only censored it due to his knowing of his behaviour to be unacceptable):

An audio rebuke of David Wood’s behaviour:

I hope the respected Sheikh takes time to view this material and ponders upon the inevitable negativities which could result from a firm agreement to debate Wood. I would also ask Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal to contrast his thoughts with any potential positives that could come from withdrawing from a debate with David Wood. The major positives would surely include (Insha’Allah):

1. David Wood seriously reconsidering his recent behaviour
2. A loud and clear message would be sent to people within apologetics and Truth-seeking about the importance of reserved behaviour
3. Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal would enhance the reputation of decent apologists and send a message of self-reflection to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Sam Shamoun

In the interest of fairness it would also be relevant to point out Sam Shamoun’s behaviour of late has been more than shoddy of late. In fact, due to his propensity to hound and abuse colleagues of mine a letter of rebuke was produced. Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal would do well to read this posting concerning Sam Shamoun and rethink his agreement relating to a debate with Shamoun:

Dr James White

From my research into White I formed the view that White is a man of responsible behaviour, a well-reputed individual as well as an individual who does not come with the unfortunate baggage Wood and Shamoun come with. A discussion/debate with White would not meet any opposition from a fair Muslim in my view.

I hope Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal, Sheikh Mohammad Jowad Al-Ansari and Dr James White read this posting as I feel their (Wood's and Shamoun's) recent behaviour excludes them from sharing a podium with respected individuals.

Sunday, 16 May 2010

Skeptic's Annotated Quran Are Corrected

Link to full article:

Sam Shamoun's "Smoking Gun" on the "Mary: Sister of Aaron and Mother of Jesus" Specualtion

It turns out that a critic of Islam, Sam Shamoun, has produced a lengthy article concerning the “Mary: Sister of Aaron issue” Shamoun's article is entitled "Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Sister of Aaron". Strangely enough, Shamoun includes this article in his "Quran contradiction" section

Predictably he tries to keep the argument alive via his article. As my counterpart, David Wood, produced a video presentation vocalising Shamoun’s written work I have unwittingly already responded to much of Shamoun’s material in my response to David Wood.

Rather than reiterating the points of refutation made at David Wood’s work I will leave the reader to view the links below:

Written form:

Summarised audio form:

The Critic's Final Stand Has Ended

However, Shamoun did seem to be addressing Muslim responses to his claims and he cited the references Muslims brought up in order do prove the usage of idioms (such as the “sister of Aaron”) by the past generations.

Muslims, admittedly, have supplied references from the Bible which do not exactly match the pattern of the expression used in Surah 19:28 (sister of Aaron) though the references supplied to prove the usage of non-literal phraseology and titles.

Shamoun dismisses a Muslim author’s reference by stating:

“In every single example that the author provided, the word used in connection with one’s lineage, to descendants, isn’t "brother of" or "sister of" but rather "son of" or "daughter of"! Not a single example provided by the author which refers to a person’s lineage ever use the expression "brother of" or "sister of."”

Though the Muslim has a point in bringing up these references the more obstinate critic (such as Shamoun) is not going to accept them as they want to see a “smoking gun” (phraseology of the same nature, using the word “sister”)

The "Smoking Gun"

Recently, the “smoking gun” has been found. Ironically, it has been found in the words of JESUS within the Gospel of Mark (3:35)!

Jesus produces a non-time-dependant saying by stating:

“Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother”. (Mark 3:35)

As this quote from Jesus is not reliant on time or place we can safely say this is the “smoking gun” Shamoun and other critics have been looking for from the Muslims.

As the quote from Jesus is not time-dependant , Esther, Asiya and Sarah are considered the sisters of Jesus as they did the will of God

A lady in 2010, doing the will of God, is also the sister of Jesus according to Mark 3:35.

Thus, we have our clear evidence that phraseology of the nature used by the Jews in the Quran (19:28) was used by and understood by other Jews too (as highlighted by the Jew named Jesus).

A Quick Recap

"O sister of Aaron! thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" (Yusuf Ali’s translation of Quran19:28)

Surah 19:28 points to a group of Jews calling Mary by the term “sister of Aaron”. Of course Aaron lived and passed away well before Mary. Muhammed explained this passage as to be an idiom (not to be taken literally), thus it was simply a custom of the people of the past to name people in this fashion based on past pious personalities. [1]

Most critics accept Muhammad’s explanation, but the more obstinate wanted evidence of such idiomatic usage by past Jewish/Christian communities. The Muslims did supply evidence of non-literal expressions/titles being used within the Bible.

Some of these critics accepted this evidence but others were not satisfied (such as Shamoun) and they wanted a “smoking gun”

Well, Sam Shamoun and other critics who have been clinging onto the remnants of this tired and refuted argument have their “smoking gun”, ironically it was right under their noses, in the New Testament (Mark 3:35).

An Appeal to Reason

I sincerely hope Sam Shamoun and the other remaining stubborn critics behave in an intellectually honest fashion now and relinquish any hold on this refuted argument they still have. I would urge them to stop propagating (spreading) this argument as it would be total intellectual injustice to continue to do so.


[1] In Sahih Muslim, no. 5326

If you have any queries concerning this article please contact the author (Yahya Snow)

Allah knows best

Tuesday, 11 May 2010

David Wood Tries to Ruffle My Feathers :)

Perhaps this is an internet tactic amongst experienced internet apologists such as Wood...but I will not be playing any games...I will continue utilizing an analytical and methodically rational approach to my refutations of Wood's approach which is yielding excellent results

It was interesting to note that Wood is still talking about my rebuke of his behaviour but is ignoring my refutations of his work...what is more important to Wood...his ego or the validity of his work???

David seemed to be commenting in a provocative I ended the conversation with this comment (I hope he approves this comment):


Judging by your comments towards me of late I think it is best for us to stop conversing at this juncture...futility and sensationalism are of no use to any Truth seeker

I bid you good night

I await your second video in the series on the Quran...I will respond to that too (unless my colleagues beat me to the punch)...God Willing

Peace...I wish you and your family all the best...May God bless them further...Ameen

Monday, 10 May 2010

A Response to David Wood's Argumentation on the "Sister of Aaron" Issue

Audio by Yahya Snow

Show cased on the brotherofJesus1 channel

Note none of the footage in the YouTube video is of Yahya Snow or David Wood

Response to: Qur'an Error #1: Was Mary Both the Mother of Jesus and the Sister of Aaron?

Mary the sister of Aaron?

Surah 19:28 of the Quran sees Mary called the sister of Harun (Aaron).

At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" [Qur'an 19:27-28]

The critics point out that Aaron, the brother of Moses, came before the time of Mary and then allege a Quranic error.

The problem for the critics is that this has already been explained by Muhammed as an idiom (a figure of speech). Muhammed explained this Quranic reference by saying “the (people of the old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of apostles and pious persons who had gone before them." [1]

So there is no anachronistic error here, it is simply an error on the part of the critics due to their lack of knowledge concerning the explanatory material by Muhammed related to the Quran.

So in short, this is not to be taken literally, Muhammad knew Aaron predated Mary. Sadly, the critics jump to a literal view of this verse despite Muhammad’s explanation showing the verse to be an idiom (figure of speech)

To deal with this claim thoroughly let us focus on some Christian missionaries who pad this claim with other references or points of argumentation.

1. The first appendum is that the Christians of Najran were the ones who objected to the title “sister of Harun”, thus the critic claims this intimates idioms of such a nature were not in use in the past. The critic wants PROOF showing past communities using such phraseology.

Well, this clearly highlights the critic’s (as well as the Christians of Najran’s) lack of Biblical knowledge as the Bible proves Muhammed to be correct in saying people of the past gave names based on the apostles and pious personalities who had gone before them.

In the Bible, Jesus is described as the son of David, David had certainly lived/died before Jesus yet Jesus is described as the son of David in the BIBLE, thus proving the use of such names (ie Muhammed is proven to be correct by he Bible). The Bible came before Muhammed and represents the mindset and customs of the people of the past, thus it shows Muhammed’s explanation to be historically accurate.

The Bible supports Muhammed’s expnation and shows idioms of such a nature were in vogue (in use) in the past:

Example 1

Bible shows the “daughter of Aaron” was used as an idiom to describe Elizabeth, though Elizabeth was not the literal daughter of Aaron:

…he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." [Luke 1:5, RSV]

Example 2

Jesus is described as the son of David despite not being his literal son!

And the crowds that went before him and that followed him shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!...[Matthew 21:9 RSV]

Example 3

The Quran also shows the use of such idioms as the past Prophet Hud is described as the brother of the people of A’ad (to whom he was sent)

And unto (the tribe of) A'ad (We sent) their brother, Hud… [Qur'an 7:65]

Example 4 (the most relevant pertaining to Surah 19:28)

Jesus in the Gospel of Mark 3:35 teaches us that whoever does the will of God is the brother of Jesus.

Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mark 3:35 RSV)

If a lady in 2010 (who does the will of God) is the sister of Jesus then we can clearly see that Jesus himself used this form of idiom that Muhammed spoke of.

So if a God-fearing women such as Sarah (wife of Abraham) or Mary Magdelene can be described as the “sisters” of Jesus due to their submission to the Will of God then the Virgin Mary can certainly be described as the sister of Aaron!

The example in Mark 3:35 shows that Jesus ( a person of the past) used the SAME idiomatic expression which we find in Surah 19:28.

So it is clear that Muhammed’s explanation makes historical sense. The critics simply highlight their lack of knowledge pertaining to the figures of speech and titles in use in the past Abrahamic communities.

2. They claim Muhammad made the explanation up because he was caught out to be in error.

This argumentation is not backed by the facts but is based on conjecture on the part of the critic.

The fact is Muhammad’s explanation is historically accurate and backed by the Bible! So clearly he did not make an explanation up on the spot based on a whim but his explanation is found to be solid and supported by history.

Also, Muhammed was regarded as the trustworthy so it does not follow his character to make a deceptive explanation up.

3. The critics pad their claim with irrelevant information/references

One such reference is from Ibn Kathir’s commentary on the verse 19:28:

It was narrated from Ibn Jarir, narrated from Yaqub, narrated from Ibn U’laya, narrated from Sa’id Ibn Abi Sadaqa, narrated from Muhammad Ibn Sireen who stated that he was told that Ka’b said the verse that reads, "O sister of Harun (Aaron)!" (of Sura 19:28) does not refer to Aaron the brother of Moses. Aisha replied to Ka’b, "you have lied."
Ka’b responded, "O Mother of the believers! If the prophet, may Allah’s prayers be upon him, has said it, and he is more knowledgeable, then this is what he related. Besides, I find the difference in time between them (Jesus and Moses) to be 600 years." He said that she remained silent.

Bizarrely some missionaries are attempting to pad their claim by utlizing the misunderstanding of Aisha concerning this issue as “evidence” for their claim.

Aisha’s misunderstanding of the issue is only due to the fact that Muhammed nor her fellow companions (students of Muhammad) had yet explained this issue to her. So Aisha took the verse literally as she had not yet heard of Muhammad’s explanation of it to be an idiom.

The fact is, in this reference, Ka’b confirms Muhammed did not think Mary was the (literal) sister of Aaron is enough to pour cold water on the critics baseless claims. Thus we further realise that the Quran is not claiming Mary to be the literal sister of the brother of Moses (Aaron).

Moreover, this tradition also shows that Ka’b himself knew there was a huge difference of years between Mary and Aaron prior to Muhammad’s explanation.

In addition we also note that Aisha’s silence points to her acknowledgement of her error (misunderstanding), her misunderstanding was only due to the fact that at this instance Aisha had not had the verse explained to her by the Prophet or any student of the Prophet but once the verse was explained to her by Ka’b (using the teachings of Muhammad) she accepted the explanation and acknowledged her error (inferred by her silence).

It is hardly scholarly to jump on the misunderstanding of one Muslim (Aisha) and try to build a case of “Quranic error” based on this despite Muhammad’s explanation of the verse to be an idiom. Such is the desperation of some critics, sadly the critics who have gone to this length are the Christian missionaries. Hardly the most Christian or honest method of reason!

4. The critics play on the name “Imran”

The critics point to the fact that the name of Aaron’s father is Amran (Imran) and Islamic sources call Mary the daughter of Imran. The critic then claims this is support for their allegation of anachronistic error levelled at the Quran.

However, the critics miss the fact that the name of Mary’s father was in fact Imran thus the Islamic sources do not support their claim as the Islamic sources are completely correct and accurate to call Mary the daughter of Imran as she was the daughter of Imran!

It just so happens that BOTH Aaron and Mary had fathers named “Imran” but Muhammed pointed out that the two were not the same person in his explanation of Surah 19:28 [1] so it would be unscholarly to ignore Muhammad’s explanation in favour of convoluted conjecture.

George Sale points to the fact that Muhammed knew Aaron and Mary lived during difference time periods:

Sale wrote:
“it manifestly appears that Mohammed well knew and asserted that Moses preceded Jesus several ages." [2] Thus it is clear to Sale that Muhammed did not believe Mary and Aaron to be literal brother and sister or even contemporaries. Why can’t the Christian missionaries/critics see the obvious?

But though Mohammed may be supposed to have been ignorant enough in ancient history and chronology, to have committed so gross a blunder; yet I do not see how it can be made out from the words of the Koran. For it does not follow, because two persons have the same name, and have each a father and brother who bear the same names, that they must therefore necessarily be the same whereby it manifestly appears that Mohammed well knew and asserted that Moses preceded Jesus several ages… [2]

It must be observed that though the Virgin Mary is called in the Koran, the sister of Aaron, yet she is nowhere called the sister of Moses. [2]

And the commentators accordingly fail not to tell us, that there had passed about one thousand eight hundred years between Amran the father of Moses and Amrean the father of the Virgin Mary [2]

The more deviant critic who knows of the fact that both Mary and Aaron had fathers named “Imran” holds this crucial information away from the audience in order to misdirect the audience down the path of error.


Muhammad explains the Quranic reference (Sura 19:28) to be an idiomatic expression rather than something to be taken literally. Muhammad’s explanation is backed up historically as Jesus uses a similar idiomatic expression.

George Sale suggests it is obvious Muhammad knew that Mary was not a contemporary of Aaron/Moses, early Muslim commentaries point to this fact too!

The critic has no evidence for his/her claim but is reliant on conjecture and interpolation.

Appendix 1

Some of the citations concerning “Imran” used by the critic are listed here so the reader can familiarise themselves with the claim of the critics/Christian missionaries:

Quran 3:35-36

Quran 66:12

Sahih al-Bukhari 3769

Further Reading:


[1] In Sahih Muslim, no. 5326

[2] George Sale, The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 38.

Muslim Workers Forced to Eat Pork

A strange story.


Saturday, 1 May 2010

Muslim Response to Draw Muhammad Day

Remember...this is not an invitation to violence but an invitation to love, learning and respect.

Video is by Sami Zaatari...lifted from his YouTube page