Tuesday, 31 August 2010

The Truth About the Thighing (Mufakhathat) Canard

The Mufakhathat (Thighing) Claim is a Deception
It is wise to make people aware of a fabrication (falsification) traversing the internet which states Islam allows Muslim men to gratify themselves sexually with pre-pubescent girls (even as young as 3 years of age) via a method known as mufakhafat (thighing).

This claim of theirs is errant nonsense. The early classical scholar, Hasan al-Basri (642 - 728 or 737 AD), has already made it known Islam does NOT allow Muslim men to approach prepubescent girls in a sexual fashion. [1]

As for the fabrication (falsified fatwa) on the internet; Ebrahim Saifuddin confirms the thighing claims are erroneous (“a fabricated lie”) and points out Christian missionaries made this malicious, untrue and vile allegation up. [2] Moreover Muhaddith.org inform us the falsified fatwa has ALREADY been commented upon by Saudi scholars and they have denounced it as a lie as well as informing us Islam does not allow such a sick practice. The Saudi scholars also confirm the Prophet Muhammad NEVER took part in such a practice, thus further denouncing and disproving the Christian missionary lies. [1]

I have appended a typical sample of the false claim to this article (see appendix 1).

Looking Stupid

I have recently come across two people parroting the false claims and using these fabrications in order to satisfy their anti-Muslim agenda – one of these individuals is a Christian tele-evangelist of ill-repute whilst the other is a member (Kevin Carroll) of a far right group named “English Defence League” (EDL). These people do not realise how unscholarly and silly they look when repeating such nonsense even though it does not take much in the way of research to realise the material they use is a fabrication (false).

Another Fabrication?

Alongside the “fatwa” fabrication there seems to be another fabrication of this nature attributed to Khomeini which is being circulated on the internet. I would like to state Khomeini is NOT seen as an authority and is seen as a deviant by recognised scholarly authorities. Nevertheless the quotes attributed to Khomeini are thought to be fabrications too.

The “book” where the alleged Komeini’s quotes were taken from ("Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990) does not seem to even exist! [3]. Alongside the alleged quotes of approving child-sex there are alleged quotes approving sex with animals [4]. Both are outrageously false allegations; Islam does not allow these depraved actions


Essentially, somebody/group of bodies made a malicious lie up about Islam and other Islamophobes have been propagating (spreading) it without checking for accuracy and truth.

The fact remains, Islam does not allow thighing (mufakhafat) of prepubescent girls. There are forgeries on the internet which are being used in a smear campaign against Muslims - be alert to these false and nasty claims.

Any feedback: send it to Yahya Snow at yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] http://www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc

[2] http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/

[3] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22934-kohmeinis-alleged-pedophile-qoute/

[4] http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/is-sex-with-animals-allowed-in-islam/

Appendix 1
Here is a typical sample of the falsehood we have discussed in this article (increase screen size to read it, it was shrunk for compaction purposes):

Regarding the practice of "thighing", the masterbating between the legs of a female infant or actually sodomizing her, Islamic clerics have this to say:

Pedophilia decrees from www.islamic-fatwa.net

Question 1809

After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)

Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat - literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child).

What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her ?

Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:

As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

“It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”

Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's "Tahrir Al wasila" p. 241, issue number 12

"Young boys or girls in full sexual effervescence are kept from getting married before they reach the legal age of majority. This is against the intention of divine laws. Why should the marriage of pubescent girls and boys be forbidden because they are still minors, when they are allowed to listen to the radio and to sexually arousing music?"

"The Little Green Book" "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini", Bantam Books

Appendix 2
Ebrahim Saifuddin of IqraProductions exposes the thighing (mufa’khathat) lie:

More info can be obtained here:


Other subjects:

Did Prophet Muhammad Have Epilepsy? No. Dr Yasir Qadhi

Christians and the 'Mahound' Lie About Prophet Muhammad p

Muslim Rapes in Norway and Sweden? Stop with the Propaganda Against Muslims!

Smear on British Pakistanis: Stats and Facts of British Pakistanis Grooming Girls

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Saturday, 28 August 2010

English Defence League (EDL): Embarrassing Video Footage in Bradford (August 2010)

Spectacular footage of EDL getting absolutely humiliated and exposed for the trouble-makers they are

Talk about morons travelling to a city (Bradford) and humiliating themselves. I've always considered the EDL as social misfits and here is the proof which exposes them for what they really are.
I have embedded two videos in this post. The first shows Sky News humiliating the EDL by showcasing their botched attack on a car as well as their in-fighting.

The second shows the infamous punch thrown at an EDL trouble-maker (which is now dubbed as the “super-punch”).

First video: EDL getting humiliated by Sky News (via Yahya Snow)

Sky news humiliate and “pwn” the EDL who were in Bradford causing trouble. Sadly for them their antics backfired and they were arrested and were even on the end of a hiding by Bradford youths.

And they have the audacity to wonder why English women avoid EDL members!

If you are sympathetic to the EDL then please have a rethink and stop wasting your lives with these losers.

Second Video: EDL member is on the end of a shuddering punch from a Bradford youth. Why travel all the way to somebody's city (Bradford in this case) to "protest" when NOBODY in the city of Bradford wants you to enter (never mind carry out your silly "protest"):

bradf ed - The best home videos are here

Interesting insight into the EDL reaction from a YouTube video uploader:

The EDL demo in Bradford was a disaster. EDL organiser Jeff Marsh chickened out of attending their own demo, less than 800 EDL showed up, and “peaceful” EDL jar-heads attacked police with bricks and bottles and even attacked the EDL’s own stewards!

EDL supporter “British Lion” posted on Facebook saying “What a F**king shambles. 700 – 1000 up (sic) throw some rocks and start fighting each other. No surrender? No fucking clue would be more like it” – http://twitpic.com/2j31to

EDL’s Steve Caroll admitted attacking an Asian before the Bradford demo had even started – http://twitpic.com/2iynno

As for the EDL supporters shown in this video – people oppose the EDL because of what it is, not because of what some EDL activists say they’d like it to be, and the facts are simple – the EDL is being used as a Trojan Horse by Nazis and BNP activists…

Taken from video description:

Any info or feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

I found a succinct summary of the EDL:
Many of these characters suffer from low esteem and seek to blame others for the impoverishment of their lives. By organising tiny grupuscules, giving themselves titles, and bleating away on internet forums they believe they are doing ‘something’ and are actually being ‘someone.’
Taken from:

Sunday, 22 August 2010

Robert Spencer: Genocidal Maniac?

Here's the thing; I don't deal with Robert Spencer as he is being monitored and refuted by people/groups who are far more familiar with him than I am (same applies to Pam Geller). Dare I also say he has become old hat and he has been refuted fully thus there is no need for all of us to bang on about him though there is obviously a need for those who are currently surveying him and his material to continue doing so for the benefit of the ummah. May God bless all those who have/still are refuting and monitoring him. Ameen

However, I have decided to dedicate a little section to Robert Spencer and I will begin to feature refutation-based material on this blog. Most (or all) of which will not be produced by myself but will consist of second hand uploads. I do recall ozzycda making a few refutation videos on Robert Spencer so perhaps I will delve into his collection and embed some of them into the Robert Spencer section on this blog.

To kick off proceedings let's have a quick look at Robert Spencer's links to a group which wants/wanted to commit genocide upon Muslims. How anti-Muslim can you get?

Video is by refuting acts 17 apologetics team

Here is their video description:
Did you know....

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch calls for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims?

Please visit: http://www.loonwatch.com/ & http://www.spencerwatch.com/ for more news and information.

Wednesday, 18 August 2010

Samuel Green: Unscholarly, Unorthodox, Ignorant, Misguided and Refuted

Samuel Green:“Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?

Initially when I gave Samuel Green’s article a cursory glance I felt Samuel Green produced one of the most pointless articles I have witnessed in my time investigating Christian outreaches to Muslims. However upon reviewing it further in detail I must revise my opinion. Samuel Green is attempting to (subtly) reinforce or even reintroduce shoddy conspiracy theories in a misguided attempt to re-write history!

Samuel Green, though gentle enough, is very much in league with the fundamentalist brigade of Christian apologists/haters on the internet such as Sam Shamoun and David Wood, thus our friend Sam Green warrants a forthright approach as subtlety is rarely an effective manner of reasoning with the Islamophobe-types who reside in Green’s camp.

I personally skipped over this until the YouTube video-maker, propagator and apologist of Islam, 1MoreMuslim, got involved in discussing Green’s article within the comment section. What happened next? 1MoreMuslim sends me an email informing me of his comments being unapproved (blocked?). I have since asked 1MoreMuslim to double check whether he has been blocked or if it is a case of Acts 17 Apologetics delaying in approving comments

IF he has been censored:

So Samuel Green and company allow some of 1MoreMuslim’s comments to go through but as soon as the dialogue threatens to become in depth and begins to show Green to be extremely erroneous Samuel Green’s friends decide to block 1MoreMuslim. This is extremely suspicious as 1MoreMuslim was contributing to the dialogue in a manner which was erudite and decent. In short there was no reason for him to be censored. It gets even more baffling as Samuel Green (now somewhat paradoxically) asked for feedback vis-à-vis his article:

“What do you think?”

Quite how Samuel Green expects to get feedback whilst his dishonest friend (most likely David Wood) blocks reactive comments behind Green’s back is beyond me. Perhaps Green would like to choose a better group of friends. Unfortunately this seems unlikely as he has been in union with the bigot Sam Shamoun for a good number of years so asking him to extradite himself from his current social circle is really asking.

Rebuking Samuel Green

In any case let’s focus on Green’s material and pick at the holes within. To do so I will adopt a two-pronged approach:

1. Briefly run through Samuel Green’s work myself whilst adding critique to it
2. Bring in 1MoreMuslim's dismissal of Green’s claims

In the way of a disclaimer I would like to state none of my analysis is designed to make Samuel look silly and I am pretty certain 1MoreMuslim’s comments were not designed for the purpose of ridicule. At this juncture I would also like to add the unscholarly nature of Green’s work warrants sharp rebuke

Analysis of Sam Green’s Conspiracy Theories and Conjecture

Green entitle his article; “Did Muhammad fight before the hijrah?

Samuel Green seems to have little regard for scholarship as scholarship tells us Muhammad did not fight prior to the Hijrah. The Muslims lacked any real capacity to do so.

Green, however, knows this but is trying to sow seeds for his conspiracy theories and conjecture.
Green goes on:

“In the histories I have read about Muhammad, I have been told that before the hijrah he endured suffering and shame from the Meccans and never fought or was violent. I may have misunderstood the Muslim claim but this is what I understand, that Muhammad did not fight before the hijrah.”

Green need not bother playing innocent here. Sam Green knows full well this is the Muslim claim as well as the Non-Muslim claim. All scholarship agrees on this fact. Thus it would appear Green is wasting his time. Nevertheless Samuel Green persists and even pulls out his ace from the pack:

However, I am reading my way through the qur'an and it seems this understanding of Muhammad's life does not work easily.

So Green is now arguing against expertise. Who exactly is Samuel Green? Green would do well to know his place. To Green’s credit he does bring an argument to cast doubt on the said scholarship. It must be noted his argument is laced in ignorance and is highly spurious:

In Sura 16 (the bee)Islamic scholars say that verse 110 comes for the Medinan period and has been inserted into this Meccan sura.

Then lo! thy Lord - for those who became fugitives after they had been persecuted, and then fought and were steadfast - lo! thy Lord afterward is (for them) indeed Forgiving, Merciful. 16:110

Sam Green fails to mention the scholars he speaks about but goes on to impute thought upon them (again without mentioning the scholars involved):

“The reason for saying this verse is inserted is that it refers to fighting in a Meccan period sura”

Samuel Green gets Interesting

OK, Green has laid out his cards and wants to concentrate on two points from his agenda. Here is Green trying to get us to follow his unorthodox thought pattern - a thought pattern which is merely employed in an attempt to deconstruct Islam and has nothing to do with intellectual integrity or scholarship:

“If the Qur'an is the best source for understanding Muhammad's life (and I think it is), then doesn't it appear that he was fighting before the hijrah? Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”

Is Green serious here? How can the Quran be the best source of understanding the life of Prophet Muhammad (p) when we have Ahadith literature which is more focussed on the personal activities of the Prophet Muhammad?

The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran is not about Prophet Muhammad and is a Revelation for Mankind as Guidance. The Quran is the Book revealed by God (Allah) to the Prophet Muhammad.

Therefore this Book is not going to be more relevant in studying the life of Muhammad than the Ahadith literature which would factor in Muhammad’s sayings and daily activities amongst other things as Ahadith literature is essentially about Muhammad. A testimony to this fact would be the biographers’ predominant use of material from Ahadith literature in order to compile their respective biographies of Prophet Muhammad (p). Common sense tells you Green is mistaken. Sadly, common sense eludes critics as their desperate desire to have a pop at Islam blinds them

Green is either grossly negligent in this remark or is being intellectually dishonest in order to build a case according to his personal agenda. Please have a rethink, Sam, You do yourself no favours at all in operating at such a level.

Now let us focus on Green’s strange idea (dare I say “crack pot idea”, sorry Sam):

“Maybe the hijrah happened not because Muhammad was the victim but because he was the unsuccessful aggressor?”

From my experience it never takes too much reading before you come across a completely over-board suggestion/assertion from somebody who is linked with Sam Shamoun. Green does not buck the trend.

Sam Green makes this suggestion based on what? Nothing at all. The biographers do not document anything of such a nature and maintain the Hijrah was due to the Quraish’s persecution of the Muslims. As per usual Green makes his claim without bringing any evidence

Al Mubarekpuri, nor any other biographer, cites anything which supports Sam Green’s strange claim. Quite how Sam Green thinks such a small group of persecuted Muslims in Makkah can be the aggressors is beyond me this disbelief in the reasoning of Green is compounded by the fact no authority supports his conspiracy theory.

Effectively Samuel Green is doing away with all the experts in the field as well as all the source literature in favour of his conspiracy theory. You can imagine Green being amongst those Christians who believe the forgeries within the Bible are inspired too.

Here is Sam Green’s last conspiracy theory:

“Is it right for Muslim scholars to use the theory of "inserted verses" to explain why their reconstruction of Muhammad's life does not match up with what the Qur'an says?”

Essentially Green accuses Muslim scholars of dishonesty.

This is rich coming from Samuel Green, the man who is a partner of Sam “Muslims are black stone lickers” Shamoun. Those in glasshouses should not throw stones, Sam.

The “theory” of inserted verses

Samuel Green is an enigma. He is making a disparaging claim without any knowledge whatsoever. Green admits to his ignorance in the comment section:

“What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?”

Green fails to realise we DO have evidence of verses being arranged by the Prophet himself! I guess ignorance is bliss for Sam.

Firstly Al Azami, upon speaking of the Surahs and Verses, states:

It is commonly acknowledged that the arrangement of ayat (verses) and suras (chapters) in the Quran is unique. The layout does not follow the chronological order of revelation, nor does it follow subject matter.

Here is a narration (Hadith) which shows us verse insertion was carried out by the Prophet himself as Al Azami writes:

“Uthman states that whether the revelation consisted of lengthy, successive verses, or a single revelation in isolation the Prophet would summon one of his scribes and say, “Place this verse [of these verses] in the sura where such and such is mentioned”” [ Tirmidi Sunnan no 3086] [1]

Al Azami goes on to give further evidence of verse insertion being supervised by the Prophet (p) [1]. For our purposes of educating Green so he desists in spreading silly conspiracy theories this is sufficient.

I would also remind Green the Surahs were recited in daily prayers (and special Ramadan prayers) which meant the sequence of verses would have been agreed upon at the time of Prophet Muhammad. I mention this in order to pre-emptively quell any further unorthodox theories our friend Sam may have in mind.


[1] The History of The Quranic Text, M.M Al Azami, UK Islamic Academy, 2003 [pg 70-72]

1MoreMuslim Dismisses Samuel Green and his unorthodox ideas

1MoreMuslim makes a great refuting comment based on common sense and appeals to Sam's faculty of reason:

This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?

The verse 126 begins with "IF" , God instruct how to retaliate in the future, IN CASE that the Muslims will have to, But God instructed them to be patient. So no fighting in there!

At this Sam Shamoun pops in to help Samuel Green and actually makes a half-decent point and manages to keep his calm; I guess all the critique of his attitude is paying dividends and the man is attempting to reform himself :

This verse is a madinah verse, not because the mention of fight, but rather for an obvious reason; the verse speaks about refugees. Muslims cannot be refugees before the Hijra to Medina. Are you not able to think?

Your argument doesn't follow since this verse can be referring to the Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia and sought asylum from the Negus. This event took place while Muhammad and the majority of Muslims still remained in Mecca.

So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?

However, Sam is soon shot down quite spectacularly by 1MoreMuslim:

To Sam;
"So how do you know for certain this refers to the fugitives who settled in Medina?"
Because those people are referred to as "Muhajirun"
And after all , what are you trying to prove? That Muhammad sent his followers to Abyssinia, and stayed in Makkah fighting, while living among the Mushrikeen? Was it a kind of street fight during the day, and when the night falls everybody go home? If you want to revise and rewrite history, try something believable.
Read the first and second comment to this article, you people can't understand an English Sentence, let alone the Hebrew and the Arabic.

Enter Samuel Green, I guess he must have felt a little silly at this point:

My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura, yet the sura is Meccan. What evidence do we have that Muhammad moved verses around?

My observation is simply this, that when Muslim scholars say different verses come from different periods within the one sura, it seems that they are trying to make the Qur'an fit into their reconstructed view of Muhammad's life. I cannot see any evidence for the idea that 110 verses in sura 16 are meccan and just one verse is medinan. I think the Qur'an is a better source for Muhammad's life and that the scholars are wrong.

1moremuslim, your argument is based on the scholars view of Muhammad's life. I am suggesting that this does not match up with the Qur'an at every point.

Note: Green’s quest for evidence of Muhammad (p) arranging verses has been satisfied in the article (see above), Green, embarrassingly, is still clinging onto his conspiracy theory which flies in the face of all expertise and scholarship. Samuel Green’s raison d’être, on this, evidence is to intimate unsupported and unorthodox claims and never back them up regardless of how silly he looks. 1MoreMuslim pours further admonition on our friend Green:

To Samuel Green:

Your whole argument is made of thin air, Be it Medinan or Meccan, Q 16:110 doesn't mention fighting AT ALL. The Arabic for fight is " Katalou" , but here we find the word "Jahadou" which means struggle and steadfast. You are committing a circular reasoning with ignorance: You are using a translation influenced by the idea that the verse is Medianan, and used that translation to prove that the verse is a Meccan.
Samuel, if you reject the view of the scholars and commentators, then you should translate the word "Jahadou" as Struggled, not fought.
David Wood, above, recommended M H Shakir translation, take his advice. It's not bad. You should remove this article and apologize for deceiving your readers.

1MoreMuslim also points out Samuel Green’s unwitting refutation of his fellow Christian critics! Welcome to the bizarre double-minded world of this particular band of internet fundamentalist-Christian apologists:

Samuel Green:
"My point is, if we just read the sura 16, verse 110 flows with the rest of the sura"

Thank you for that testimony Samuel, there have been critics which say that the Quran is incoherent

You can find 1MoreMuslim here:http://www.youtube.com/user/1MoreMuslim


There you have it folks. We have a Christian apologist in the form of Samuel Green ignoring all scholarship and authority and attempting to re-write history. I feel for Christians who support individuals with this type of disconnection from intellectual honesty and scholarship. For what it is worth I rebuke Samuel Green for this shoddy display of his and I join 1MoreMuslim in calling for Green to apologise.

All in all, I guess our friend, Green, is rather red (faced) now. Or should we coin a word from the limited vocabulary of his partner (Shamoun) and dismiss him as “pathetic”.

I want to further rebuke people like Samuel Green and ask them to focus on real issues related to salvation rather than wasting time on intellectually-dishonest ideas designed to have a poke at Muslims. Think!

Think: Jesus has a God and has brothers and sisters as well as a God.

I ask Green to focus on the One who Jesus was praying to (appendix 1). This is obviously God and a sincere Christian would be focussing on these issues which pertain to salvation and not idling time away in conjuring shoddy and unsupported theories

I invite Samuel Green and ALL Christians to worship the God whom Jesus worshipped. Obviously if Jesus has a God then he cannot possibly be God. Therefore common sense dictates we should do away with the claim of Jesus being God.

Christians, please think about it. This is extremely important. God does not want you to be worshipping a man. Look into the first commandment (Exodus 20)my friends and focus on your salvation rather than wasting time.

You shall have no other gods before Me (God)

I ask you to become Muslims and join us as the brothers of Jesus (appendix 2). Search for the Truth and the Truth shall free you. Learn more about the Truth here:

Contact: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Appendix 1

Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:

So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV

Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)

Appendix 2

Jesus has brothers and sisters (Mk3:35). Of course God does not have brothers or sister. These brothers and sisters of Jesus can ONLY be Muslims so please become a brother/sister of Jesus by becoming a Muslim:


Appendix 3

If you are Assyrian or Arab Christian and want some encouragement to convert to Islam (this is suitable for all Christians): http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/assyrians-and-arab-christians-please.html

Monday, 16 August 2010

Islamophobes: Think Before you Quote from Tareekh al Tabari

How Reliable is “The History of at-Tabari”?


I noticed a few troubling quotes in Tabari, such as a narration about Abu Bakr ordering Fatima’s house to be attacked. Can you please tell me: how authentic or reliable of a source do we Sunnis view Tabari?


In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of all the worlds.

Tareekh at-Tabari was a voluminous text compiled by Imam Ibn Jarir at-Tabari (may Allah be pleased with him). Imam at-Tabari followed the classic methodology of early Islamic historians, a process which differed greatly from modern day historical writers. Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhaditheen authenticated them.

Therefore, based on the above, we find that Tareekh at-Tabari is simply a collection of narrations on certain events; some of these narrations are accurate, whereas others are not. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. As such, we find that it is ignorant of the enemies of Islam that they assume that we Sunnis accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari as valid, when in fact this is not the case nor has any Sunni scholar ever accepted this–not even Imam at-Tabari himself! Imam at-Tabari clearly says in the introduction of his book that the narrations found in his book are only as good as the people who narrate them. If the compiler of the book does not view all of the narrations as authentic, then it is indeed absurd for the Shia to assume that we accept each and every single narration in Tareekh at-Tabari. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I have merely reported it as it was reported to me.

(Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)

Imam at-Tabari’s book was simply an attempt to place Hadiths into a chronological order so that they would read out like a historical narrative; therefore, Tabari–like Ibn Ishaq–did a wonderful job of creating one of the first books which placed Hadiths in a chronological order. However, Imam at-Tabari only placed them in the right order, but he did not authenticate them, nor did he claim that. It should be known that to the Sunnis, the only two books of Hadith which are considered completely authentic are the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim). After these two books, there are four other books which are considered reliable, but which contain some authentic and some unauthentic Hadiths. As for Tareekh at-Tabari, it is considered less reliable than any of these six books of Hadith! If, for example, a Shia were to quote a Hadith from Sunan at-Tirmidhi, then we would have to look up the Isnad in order to verify its authenticity. If this is the case with Sunan at-Tirmidhi, one of the six books of Hadith, then what can be said of a book (i.e. Tareekh at-Tabari) which is of a lower status than the six? For that matter, Tareekh at-Tabari is not even a book of Hadith, but it is lower than that: it is a book of history, and as is well-known, the scholars of Hadith would criticize the historians for their lack of scruples when it came to using weak narrations.

The most authentic book of Shia Hadith is Al-Kafi, compiled by Imam al-Kulayni, i.e. “Thiqat al-Islam”. Yet, many times the Shia will adamantly deny Hadiths found in that book, and even go as far as to say that the book contains thousands of unauthentic Hadith. If this is the Shia attitude towards the book they claim is the most authentic, then it is absurd for the Shia to expect us to accept every narration found in at-Tabari’s book, when in fact we Sunnis view Imam at-Tabari’s book with less honor than the Shia view Imam al-Kulayni’s book. In Al-Kafi there are narrations from the mouths of the Shia Imams that mention how Ali ibn Abi Talib wed his daughter to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Yet, the Shia will claim that these are falsely attributed to the Imam; then why do the Shia balk when we say that not every narration in Imam at-Tabari’s book is authentic?

What we have stated above applies to books written by Islamic historians in general; as for Imam at-Tabari in particular, then it should be known that he was specifically criticized for his over-reliance on weak and unauthentic narrators. Imam at-Tabari wished to create a well-balanced book, which would contain both Sunni and Shia narrations. He felt that his book would be incomplete if he only included one side to the exclusion of the other. In fact, Imam at-Tabari used so many Shia narrators and included so many Shia narrations that he was accused of being a Shia Rafidhi. Furthermore, the rumors that Imam at-Tabari did not recognize the jurisprudential superiority of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal further fueled the discontent towards Imam at-Tabari amongst the ranks of the Sunni orthodoxy. The Hanbalis–whom the Shia of today would refer to as the founding fathers of the “Wahabis”–rioted outside Imam at-Tabari’s home in protest. Franz Rosenthal of Yale University writes:

He [Tabari] was denounced by Abu Bakr b. Abi Dawood to the influential chamberlain of al-Muqtadir, Nas al-Qushoori. He [Tabari] was accused of Jahmite inclinations and extremist [Shia] Rafidhi views and was forced to issue a denial…[of the] general accusations of dogmatic heresy and extremist Shi’ah sympathies which we hear about mainly in connection with quarrels with the Hanbalites…They [the Hanbalites] propagated the idea that he was a Shi’ah extremist and, ultimately, a heretic…Enraged Hanbalites thereupon stoned his residence and caused a serious disturbance which had to be subdued by force.

(Franz Rosenthal, General Introduction to “The History of al-Tabari”)

According to some sources, Imam at-Tabari issued a formal apology to the Hanbalis before his death; we read:

Tabari secluded himself in his house and produced his well-known book containing his apology to the Hanbalis. He mentioned his own legal views and dogmatic beliefs. He declared unreliable those who thought differently about him with respect to those matters…He extolled Ahmad ibn Hanbal and mentioned his legal views and dogmatic beliefs as being correct. He continued to refer to him constantly until he died.

(Irshad, Vol.6, p.437)

Therefore, it is not at all surprising that Tareekh at-Tabari would contain some narrations that the Shia would use against us; this was a consequence of Imam at-Tabari’s decision to compile both Sunni and Shia narrations, without commenting on their authenticity. Of course, the accusations against Imam at-Tabari that he was a Shia Rafidhi were one hundred percent incorrect; there is no doubt that Imam at-Tabari was a very respectable Imam of the Sunnis. He merely included Shia narrations/narrators based on the tradition of Islamic historians to simply compile Hadiths and to leave the authenticating to the Muhaditheen. So while we do not question the “Sunni-ness” of Imam at-Tabari, we bring up the point that people accused him of being a Shia Rafidhi to prove that the narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were never accepted by the mainstream Muslims as being one hundred percent authentic, and whoever would claim such a thing is a liar. The Shia narrations found in Tareekh at-Tabari were rejected back then, as they are now.

Not only did Imam at-Tabari include Shia narrations in his book, but he also included Christian and Zoroastrian accounts. This was in line with his belief of compiling a “balanced” book that would document all the various accounts from a variety of segments of the society. It is for this reason that some of the narrations in his book with regards to the story of Creation are not in line with the Islamic belief. Indeed, as we have stated repeatedly, not all the narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari can be accepted.

The Shia are allied with the other enemies of Islam when they use weak narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari in order to attack the mainstream Muslims. It was, after all, Salman Rushdie who used a narration in Tareekh at-Tabari to prove the story of the “Satanic verses.” And yet, we know that even though this narration is found in Tareekh at-Tabari, it is unauthentic as mentioned by Ibn Katheer and others. The methodology the Shia use to attack the mainstream Muslims is very similar to that employed by the apostates and avowed enemies of Islam. If the Shia propagandist would mock us when we doubt the authenticity of Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us mock them when they doubt the authenticity of their most authentic book of Hadith (i.e. Al-Kafi). If they insist that we accept every narration in Tareekh at-Tabari, then we insist that they accept every narration in Al-Kafi, that book which is full of Shirk, Kufr, and utter blasphemy. If they seek to weaken the Sunni position by bringing up narrations in Tareekh at-Tabari, then let us respond by toppling the Shia position by bringing up narrations in Al-Kafi.

To conclude, we say as Ibn Katheer said:

In these volumes, he [Tabari] reported the various narrations as they were transmitted and by whom. His discussion is a mixed bag of valuable and worthless, sound and unsound information. This is in keeping with the custom of many Hadith scholars who merely report the information they have on a subject and make no distinction between what is sound and what is weak.

(Ibn Katheer, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol.5, p.208)

As for the narration in Tareekh at-Tabari that the questioner mentioned, it is undoubtedly unauthentic. We will expound on this in a later article, Insha-Allah.

And Allah is the Source of all Strength

Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com
From: http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/islam/tabari

Sunday, 15 August 2010

Pakistan Flood Appeal

Help those afflicted with the floods in Northern Pakistan
DONATE HERE: http://www.islamic-relief.com/

Pictures of the devastation:

Do your part and donate!

Friday, 13 August 2010

Are Muslims in Egypt Really Kidnapping Coptic Christian Girls and Forcefully Converting Them?

You have Seen the Propaganda (left)...now see the truth.

Hoax Anti-Muslim Stories are Floating Around in Cyber Space!

There have been a few stories circulating the internet of this nature; “Muslims in Egypt are abducting Christian girls and enforcing their conversions in to Islam”.

I always considered most of these stories to be highly spurious. However, as somebody who is not familiar with Egyptian current affairs and its canopy I remained uncertain concerning the validity of such claims. The claims (to me) appeared to be nothing more than propaganda pieces in order to scare monger against the influence of Islam as well as serving a purpose of scare tactics in order to keep Coptic girls (and Christian girls in general) from dating Muslim men.

At this juncture I would like to state dating is strictly forbidden by Islam; however, I am a realist and realise it does take place even within religious communities be they Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

Recently an apologist (Islam Responses) who is familiar with current affairs of the Middle East passed me three names of Coptic women as well as denouncing the claims of these Coptic ladies being abducted by Muslims as false. The three names were:

1-Kamilia Zakher كامليا زاخر

2-Christine Kileeny كريستين قلينى

3-Wafaa Constantine وفاء قسطنطين

Now, I did a spot of quick digging and have come to the conclusion the Western audiences are NOT being fully informed of what is taking place between Coptic Christian ladies, their respective Coptic communities/families and the Muslims they align themselves with.

Islam Does NOT allow Forced Conversion

Let us be frank and clear. Islam does not allow forced conversions. ALL reasonably educated Egyptian Muslims would know this (I would take this to be 99% of the Muslims in Egypt or more):

Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.” [Sûrah al-Baqarah: 256]


Kamilia Zakhir (Camillia Zakher)

So here is a relevant snippet from what the good person at Islam Responses stated in the email:

The first woman (Kamillia Zaker) has converted to Islam, she is a wife of a Coptic priest. She went to Al- Azhar to declare her convert but Al Azhar refused and gave her back to the church

One may be thinking; why in the world did this lady (a wife of a Coptic priest) want to convert to Islam? Whatever one says the fact remains there was NO force involved.

Coptic Christians FALSELY alleged Camillia Zakher was abducted and forcefully converted to Islam. This is evidently untrue:

When Camilia Zakher, the 25-year-old wife of a Coptic priest, went missing for five days, Coptic Christian activists promptly staged a series of angry protests in her home province of Minya and in Cairo accusing Muslims of her abduction and forced conversion to Islam. [3]

But on Friday, Camilia was located at a friend's house by security services who escorted her home and it has since emerged that she had left home of her own will, following domestic quarrels. [3]

So Camillia Zakher was not abducted and acted on her OWN accord:

Wafa Constantine and Camillia Zakher Parallels

IslamResponses draws a comparison between Kamillia Zaker’s story and that of ANOTHER Coptic Christian lady (Wafa Constantine). Wafa Constantine was said to have been abducted by Muslims. The critics and Islamophobes are all shouting; “oh those nasty Muslims”

Myth: Wafa Constantine Abducted by “Nasty Muslims”

Here is a dose of truth. Wafa Constantine wanted to divorce the Coptic priest (who allegedly abused her) and was denied such a divorce. As a result of having her divorce request turned down she appears to have turned to Islam and the Muslims as a cry for help:

Less than one year earlier in the delta town of Abul Matamir, a melee ensued following the disappearance of the wife of a Coptic priest after she was denied divorce. Wafa Constantine threatened to convert to Islam after the church denied her permission to divorce her husband who purportedly abused her, despite having lost both legs to diabetes. [1]

So the story of Wafa Constantine is nothing of abduction. The real issue here is one of a Coptic lady entrapped in an abusive relationship and a strict Coptic community where she felt stifled and disaffected. Of course the rumour/propaganda merchants within the Coptic community (who were interested in the honour of their family, community and priest) worked assiduously and deceptively

Rumors spread like a wildfire, some saying Islamic extremists had held Constantine captive so to shield her from the church’s influence. Violent protests erupted, and Pope Shenouda retreated into isolation at his monastery. [1]

Was Wafa Constantine abducted by “nasty Muslims” and forced to convert to Islam?

No. Saying otherwise would be inaccurate.

Know the Truth: Coptic Girls are NOT Forced into Islam by Muslim Extremists

Some Coptic Christians may not like the idea of Coptic women converting to Islam on their own accord but it is the truth; they do opt for Islam due to their OWN choice without any Muslim force whatsoever. IslamResponses sums it up:

Christians claimed that Coptic women are being force to embrace Islam in Egypt but the truth is; they willingly embrace to Islam

This statement of IslamResponses is emphatically agreed upon by Nahed Abul Komsan, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights:

“A key reason for the so-called ‘kidnappings’ is that Coptic women have no right to divorce,”

“This means that if their parents tell them they are going to marry their cousin, they have to submit to this and have no choice . . . So they turn to Islam, not because of a spiritual belief in the religion but because it gives them more of an opportunity to choose their life’s path,” [2]

The Coptic community should stop vilifying Muslims because strict Coptic practices are repelling Coptic females from Christianity and ultimately leading them to Islam. Is this the fault of the Muslim? No.

Why do the Coptic Christians Fabricate (make up) such claims of Abduction?

We can get the answer from Laura (a Coptic lady):

Laura, a Coptic woman in her mid-20s living in Alexandria who asked that her surname not be used, agreed. She said that while a few of the kidnappings may be authentic, most of the media reports are based on fabrications made by the families to disguise their daughters’ dissatisfactions. [2]

“We, as Coptic women, have to deal with what our priests tell us and force upon us on a daily basis and often many women just can’t take it any longer so they just leave their families and run off with a Muslim man,” she says. [2]

These are serious insights which make a sincere individual’s stomach turn inside out. We have ALL been fed lies. People have being going around the internet and media outlets falsely demonizing Muslims, portraying them as people who prey upon innocent Christian girls and abduct them in order to convert them to Islam. Nonsense, we all KNOW the truth now.

These Coptic girls flee the harsh and restrictive community of the Copts in favour of the more tolerant Islamic communities within Egypt. Again, hardcore Coptic Christians may not like this reality but the fact of the matter is it is a reality whether liked or not. Simply disliking a reality does not give the Christian Coptic community free reign to make untrue claims of abduction and kidnap.

Let this be a stern rebuke to all those who peddle and regurgitate the false claims of the Coptic community. I ask you; does the truth matter more or does your agenda of demonizing Muslims (falsely) overarch the truth?

The Coptic Christian’s Strict Church is Pushing People to Islam

Komsan said her organization has received numerous reports from Coptic women who seek their help in deciding what to do with their lives, especially in a situation when legal divorce is not an option. She said another major factor spurring young Coptic women to flee their families is the move in the 1990s by Coptic Christian churches to forbid conversion to another Christian sect in which they might have found more freedom. [2]

“We, as Coptic women, have to deal with what our priests tell us and force upon us on a daily basis and often many women just can’t take it any longer so they just leave their families and run off with a Muslim man,” she says. [2]

Advice to Coptic Christian Girls

Converting to Islam should be a spiritual exercise and not merely an exercise to gain freedom from your strict Christian families.

If you (or any Assyrian/Coptic Christian) are interested in Islam or some encouragement to convert to the Truth then please see:


Useful site for non-Muslims: http://www.islam-guide.com/


NOTE: I am not saying there has never been a genuine case of abduction. I must state any abduction and forceful conversion of somebody to Islam is not permitted by Islam:

Muslim leaders have condemned the alleged kidnappings as contrary to Islamic thinking. Al-Azhar grand sheikh Sayyed Al-Tantawi told Al-Ahram, an Egyptian daily, that “these actions are contrary to Islam and we hope to receive more information concerning alleged kidnappings and would like to have an open dialogue with our Christian brothers and sisters in the country.” [2]


[1] http://www.dailystaregypt.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1252

[2] http://bikyamasr.com/wordpress/?p=4012

[3] http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100725/wl_africa_afp/egyptreligion_20100725235245

Yahya Snow (yahyasnow@hotmail.com)

***Angelina Jolie Stands up for Muslims***
***Hamas (Arab) Pedophile Hoax***

Wednesday, 11 August 2010

Assyrians and Arab Christians Please Come to Islam

The story of this Assyrian/Syrian girl converting to Islam is amazing. Coptic Christians are extremely proud of their heritage and thus stick to Christianity rigorously due to family and ancestoral attachment.

Many Arab Christians are taught hateful and distorted teachings about Islam from a young age in order to keep them away from Islam. It is our job to reach out to Coptic Christians and explain the Truth to them and invite them to the Truth. We should tell them Jesus is a Muslim and would want you to become a Muslim.

If you are a Coptic Christian and claim to love Jesus then become a Muslim.

This Assyrian/Syrian girl's family did not persecute her for becoming a Muslim but this girl's friend who also converted to Islam was subjected to an attempted killing at the hands of her proud Arab Christian family.

Listen to an Assyrian girl's story here:

Video Description: Half - Blood Girl Mother Assyrian from Syria and Father American Converts Islam
she was christian


Arab/Assyrian Christians should draw inspiration from this story. Let this be an impetus for sincere seeking and research of Islam

Just to highlight some of the hatred and dishonesty some Arab Christians have let us witness this Arab Christian's dishonesty (so much so that he even makes up his OWN Biblical verse!):

Here is some clarification of Muslim belief with regards to Jesus and other Prophets (more peace be upon all the Prophets, Ameen).

Muslim preaches the Word to you, please become Muslims:

If you are an Assyrian or Arab Christian and need support and counselling please feel free to email me. I understand making the jump to Islam will be daunting as you fear being ostracised by your families and communities. Remember the Truth comes with sacrifices. Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, Abraham, Noah and all the other Prophets faced hardships for the Truth.

Please don't take the easy option and remain Christian because of pride and devotion to your heritage (especially in the wake of the Truth of Islam being delivered to you within this posting).


Here is a new Muslim sharing his faith and story of conversion with you...it is your turn now:

Here is one more convert to Islam witnessing to you:

More information; go to your local Islamic centre and meet the Muslims (your new family - God willing)
Link for more on Islam: http://www.islam-guide.com/

Post by Yahya Snow

Friday, 6 August 2010

Dearborn Police Report Proves Acts 17 Apologetics have Deceived us

The Police Report Proves Acts17Apologetics are Deceptive
Here is the audio/video explaining Acts17's deception

Acts17apologetics had fooled us all into thinking the video footage they presented was evidence of their innocence.
Who would not be fooled? After all the video footage showed David Wood and his merry gang behaving impeccably well; they never breached the peace in the video footage. The video footage showed no breach of peace whatsoever but the police still came across and arrested them

Having just read the police report I can confidently declare Acts17Apologetics have been deceiving us, big time!

Before I disclose the details of the police report please consider the video footage Acts17Apologetics have presented. They presented footage of the team entering the festival and Nabeel Qureshi preaching within the confines of the Arab festival whilst the other members of Acts17 recorded the footage.

ALL the video footage Acts17Apologetics have presented is immaterial and was simply presented to misdirect the audience (deception). Acts17Apologetics have NEVER addressed the reason for their arrest and nor have they disclosed the FULL and TRUE reason being their arrest.

Yes, the reason behind their arrest was “breach of peace” BUT cleverly (and deceptively) Acts17Apologetics led us to believe the breach of peace arrest was related to Acts17Apologetics and festival goers.

This is not the case. The breach of the peace complaint is related to ONE volunteer named Roger Williams.(judging by his name I'd assume him to be a non-Muslim)

Officer Kapanowski writes (in the police report):

While inside the command trailer during Arabfest, Sgt Mrowka, Ofc Smith and I were notified by Roger Williams (festival volunteer) that he had just been harassed by a film crew and Amal Alslami had witnessed the incident.

Roger Williams decides to make a formal criminal complaint against Acts17Apologetics

Ofc Kapanowski elucidates further:

Williams stated a film crew began recording him doing his festival duties. He advised the subjects (later identified as Negeen Mayel, Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, and Paul Rezkalla) that he did not want to be filmed and told them to stop. Williams stated that they did not stop and instead, began to surround him. He added that he felt extremely uncomfortable and thought he could not leave although he attempted to several times. They continued to pester him and badger him with questions and continued filming. Williams again told them to stop filming. Qureshi and Wood, as well as Rezkalla, finally put down the microphone and camcorder to speak with him, but he noticed Mayel still filming within hearing distance. He radioed to security for assistance and the parties soon left. He advised Alslami that he wished to make a formal complaint with the police.

The police at the behest of Sgt Mrowka (due to Roger William’s formal complaint) move in to conduct a criminal investigation and apprehend Rezkalla, Wood and Qureshi (members of Acts17Apologetics) after apprehending Mayel (Negeen):

I relayed the information to Sgt Mrowka and he advised us to arrest all parties involved for Breach of Peace. Ofc Micallef, Ofc Ballard, Ofc Smith, and I located Qureshi, Wood, and Rezkalla in the center of another large crowd in the middle of the two tents. When we advised them to turn their camcorders off and they were under arrest for Breach of Peace, they were hesitant but eventually complied.

Cannot Plead Ignorance

Rezkalla, Wood and Qureshi were told of the allegation by Ofc Kapanowski:

En route to the station, Qureshi, Wood and Rezkalla asked me about the allegations. I explained they were under arrest for breach of peace and explained the allegation against them. Without questioning, they stated that they never “surrounded” Williams.

So, there you have it. Acts17Apologetics misdirected us into thinking the police came across and arrested them for no reason whilst they (Acts17) were behaving in a law-abiding manner. The individual who is not privy to ALL the information (i.e. the police report) will fall for David Wood’s deception and go away thinking the (irrelevant) video footage presented by Acts17Apologetics exonerates them and proves the guilt of the Dearborn police officers.

Well, we ALL know (thanks to the police report and no thanks to David Wood and co) the police simply acted in order to conduct a criminal investigation initiated by the official criminal complaint lodged by Roger Williams.


*Why have Acts17Apologetics led us (and their fanatical right wing supporters) to believe the police wrongly arrested them? (Deception?)

*Why have Acts17Apologetics wrongly besmirched the reputation of the Dearborn police force? (Deception?)

*Why have Acts17Apologetics deceived everybody by presenting their irrelevant footage and misconstruing it (deliberately) in order to appear innocent and portray the officers as the guilty party? (Deception?)

*Why did Acts17Apologetics never show the footage of their encounter with Roger Williams? (They DO have this footage) (Deception?)

*Why did Acts17Apologetics and their supporters try to demonise Muslims by linking the event to Sharia when no Muslim was involved in the breach of peace incident? (It is a battle between Roger Williams and Acts17apologetics, NOBODY ELSE) (Deception?)

*Why have Acts17apologetics not told us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? (Deception?)


Appendix 1

PDF of the Dearborn Arab Fest police report:


Another excerpt from the police report on the arrest of the acts17 group:

Wood even went as far as lifting the camcorder into the air in order to continue filming. Qureshi began screaming "See, I told you...I told you this stuff happens" to the large crowd who began taking pictures of us and surrounding us further. Fearing again that a riot would ensue, I requested Qureshi to remain quiet and ordered the crowd to vacate the area or they would be arrested. The large crowd complied and Qureshi, Wood, and Rezkalla were placed under arrest (Handcuffed & Double-Locked) for Breach of Peace without further incident.

NOTE: Somebody emailed related to Roger Williams being a Muslim/non-muslim. Initially I stated he was a non-Muslim (based on his name). I have clarified it is an assumption based on his name...thus we cannot know for certain. Thanks to the gentleman who contacted me.


Others have now cottoned onto the fact Acts17Apologetics have deceived us! Here is a YouTube video highlighting the police report.
This is a relevant bit of the video description:

Nabeel Qureshi, David Wood, Paul Rezkalla, and Negeen Mayel - the four foolish musketeers have been found to be deceiving us, and yes, that means you too our fellow Christian bretheren. Whether you like it or not Acts 17 Team's arrest was not because they were Christian nor was it because people just liked accusing the group of being a complete annoyance. Acts 17 Apologetics was charged with harassing a a volunteer worker known as 'Roger Williams'.

It appears people are now asking to see the footage of the exchange between Roger Williams and the controversial Christian group. Why have they NEVER shown it?
They have had the footage for long enough and furthermore have posted irreleavnt footage whilst deceiving us into thinking the police were involved in malpractice. I hope the clamour to see the footage involving Roger Williams and Qureshi/Wood etc does NOT detract from the FACT Acts17apologetics (Wood, Qureshi and co) have deceived us ALL into thinking the police arrested them wrongly. Video from a YouTube user (not Yahya Snow):

Here is a snippet from an email I received from an individual who has recognised David Wood's (and Nabeel Qureshi's) dishonesty. They are outraging honest people and getting emotions to run high:

Arrested for Being Christian Preachers in Dearborn - ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


Shouldn't that be:

Arrested after having an official complaint of harrassment lodged against us by Roger Williams

I know you must have seen this video loads now but I just watched it again and the misdirection is incredible. They have all made it look, in this video, as though they were arrested for the conversation with the Muslim youth!!! And they have the utter audacity to call other people deceptive!!! How dare they turn this around on innocent Muslims with all this Sharia in Dearborn crap - demonizing Muslims in the process. How dishonest. What utter cretins

Here is a piercing YouTube comment directed at myself denouncing the deceptive acts17apologetics:

It's becoming more and more obvious to me that Nabeel and David don't actually believe in the Gospel....if they can so blatantly lie about Islam and its teachings and deceive their whole audience - this isn't about the Gospel then, it's about something else; fortune and fame, and vice. Who really knows? I just can't believe it. How evil can one be?

Thursday, 5 August 2010

Christian Tries to Answer Muslim Question (How can God die?)

So a Christian missionary group (acts17apologetics) attempted to convince Muslims to believe in a "man-god" and to preach their doctrines to Muislims. The Christian makes many absurd claims during the video; the purpose of the video was to correct the christian (David wood) on his claims. Here is a Muslim response (by Yahya Snow):


*The missionary claims Allah was in the fire (Quan 27:7-9). This is an unsupported claim. Discussed in the video. The missionary mentions this in order to convince Muslims of the Trinitarian Christian idea of a "man-god" (pagans were fond of "men-god" back in the days)

*The missionary also claims the Quran has two natures (physical and eternal). Muslims do not believe this. The missionary misunderstood the Muslim belief (deliberately?). The claim is debunked in the video.

*The video also highlights the fact that the missionary needs a bigger god. It points to the illogical nature of Christianity as well as the lack of reliability of Christian "proof-texts".

*The idea of God's love is discussed. In doing so we notice a contradiction within the Bible. We alos learn Allah is the Most Loving.

*The idea of God's Justice is discussed and we learn the god of Christianity is not just at all. Whilst Allah (God) is the Most Just.

*We also learn Jesus was praying to God (Allah) thus Jesus cannot possibly be God.

Here is Farhan's response to Acts 17 Apologetics (from the farhan00 channel):

Tuesday, 3 August 2010

Shamed Missionary is Chased on the Internet By BeholderGuard and Rebuked

Right, BeholderGuard (as we all know) has a reputation of dealing with trolls and bringing them to account over inaccuracies/lies related to Islam.

Back Drop

Sam Shamoun (missionary) made the outlandish and fabricated claim: "Muslims are black stone lickers".

BeholderGuard called him out on this issue and challenged him to defend his misinformed pronouncements in a debate. Well, BeholderGuard is STILL looking for this missionary but the missionary seems to be playing a spotof hide and seek. I guess he KNOWS the claim ("muslims are black stone lickers") is completely fabricated and indefensible.

This missionary, Sam shamoun, does not come out and do the honourable thing and acknowledge his mistake; instead Sam is trying to change the subject. Guess what, the bounty hunter that is BeholderGuard is not going to fool for Sam's stalling and misdirecting. Put up or shut up

To be frank it is getting tiresome watching this shamed missionary, who was once entertained by the likes of Shabir Ally, squirm and try to cling on to the shred of credibility he has left.

The lesson to be learned here kids; don't trawl the internet (like Sam shamoun) making dodgy claims up about somebody else's religion...you may just be called out for it.

Beholderguard has underlined his intentions here...that is to let people know of the deception and money-making schemes of irresponsible missionaries

*Beholder specifies and reiterates the challenge
*Beholder rebukes Sam
*Beholder hints at financial irregularities linked to Shamoun

Beholder's previous attempt at rebuking and challenging Samshamoun to a debate:

Missionary Site Making Conversion Stories Up?

Pinar's Testimony (Does Pinar Exist? Is it a Missionary Forgery/Hoax?)

I came across this testimony of an ex-muslim converting Christianity on a missionary website; the chief architect of this website is well known to me and characterized by dishonesty and sensationalism

As I was reading through this testimony I could not help asking myself whether it was genuine, a hoax or simply a product of the website owners mind.
The “testimony” begins with the lady’s background and is written in the first person. The lady is named “Pinar”

My Muslim Background

She goes on to describe a secular background, a background which has very little mention of Islam or Islamic practices yet she is presented as an ex-Muslim; this is a little curious.

I was born in a big city in Turkey, to a modern family, who lived their Muslim faith in a secular way. They advised me not to worry too much about God and religion but just know that God loves me and that I love him and He will protect me and everything will be great.

Now she is questioned as to the existence of God. Does she answer utilizing the Quran or mention prayer? No, why not? It seems a little odd.

I had a lot of atheist and agnostic friends, and when they asked me how I know God exists, I told them I could feel His presence. My life was a bundle of love and blessings…

She reaches 18 and decides to read the Quran, this is odd. Why had she not read the Quran prior to this? After all she was born into a Muslim family. Curious.

Up until I decided to really check what it means to be a Muslim and what does the Kur’an say. I was 18 years old

When I decided to read the Kur’an and see what my wonderful God, full of love, has to say in the Holy Book. As you can imagine I was disappointed.

Why was she disappointed? God is al Wadood (the Most Loving) S85:14. How can you be disappointed at that? Perhaps she did not read all the Quran?

However, it now becomes apparent why her “testimony” is on an anti-Muslim site (the chief architect of the site is well renowned for hatred), she has a sensational pop:

The book was the worst horror book I have ever read. Every night my heart was racing and I was filled with terror. I said to myself, if that is what God is, I am an atheist. And I rejected the Lord of the universe just like my atheist friends.

Wow this lady wants us to believe she stopped believing in God all because of the Quran which she thought to be a “horror book”. She is even more sensationalistic as she claimed she was “filled with terror” and “every night” her “heart was racing”

Now do you really expect us to believe that?

The Quranic descriptions of Hell are balanced with descriptions of Paradise.
Furthermore, the passages concerning disbelievers have a context; did she not read the Quran with some sort of Tafsir?

Did she read the Quran at all or is she simply making things up for effect? The Quran is full of glorious teachings of mercy, kindness and wisdom. Did she not read the FIRST chapter of the Quran (Surah Al-Fatiha), the English translation (S1:1) describes Allah as:

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most MERCIFUL

Note: This lady accepts the Bible despite the violent passages within the Bible. This is perplexing and suspicious to say the least!


In my view this story sounds a little fishy. It gets fishier and I begin to think it is a hoax or the product of the mind of one of the anti-Muslim brigade from the website in question.

However, this story does mention something interesting, as she stopped “believing” in Islam this happened:

Then my life changed, I lost my peace, joy, and love, my relationships started to shatter; even though I managed to look successful on the outside, I was a huge mess

Just to get another dig in she writes:

But I did not want anything to do with the God of the Kur’an. I could not lie to people and claim, I am a Muslim when I did not believe in more than half of the Holy Book.

What half would that be? You believed in half of the Book but disbelieved in the other half. That is odd. Care to explain?

Was it simply a case of this lady being unwilling to believe in Hell and the separation of believers and disbelievers?

Getting Interesting

It gets even more interesting as the lady is willing to believe in Christianity which also has teachings of Hell as well as a separation of believers and unbelievers. The Quran and the Bible have similar themes. Somebody needs to tell Pinar this, or at least give her copies of both Books so she can realise it herself.

Getting MORE Unbelievable

OK, now it gets even more unbelievable. A friend takes her to church, she likes it and continues going BUT does not convert to Christianity:

After that day, I kept on going to churches. I have gone to house churches, catholic, protestant, etc, you name it I went. But I was not a Christian, I just liked the experience since every time when I was feeling heavily burdened, I went to church and each time God touched my heart.

Does she bother to read the Bible? NO!

At least 30 friends witnessed to me in Turkey alone but none of them could convince me of following Jesus

Despite enjoying church and all these people trying to convert her she does not convert or read the Bible. Perhaps the Old Testament would have filled her with terror?

A vision of Jesus (why do all these "conversion" stories contain "visions"?)

She then claims to have seen a vision of Jesus in a dream. After this she converted to Christianity. She did not EVEN read the Bible but converted based on feelings. Even her dream of Jesus does not instruct her to follow Christianity:

I slept and immediately Jesus was there. I was praying in a circle of believers and Jesus was amidst of us. He was covered with a prayer shawl but we were in Him

OK, Jesus had a prayer shawl over him; perhaps this indicates he prays to God and therefore has a God. Muslims believe Jesus prayed to God. This is even confirmed in the Bible!

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12) NIV

I (a Muslim) have SEEN Jesus (pbuh) in a dream too!!!

I have seen Jesus in a dream too. I did not convert to Christianity. In my dream Jesus was PRAYING (supplicating) to God. Thus Jesus has a God so cannot possibly be God.

In a different dream I was wandering the streets of Damascus and looking for Jesus whilst calling “Isa Ibn Maryam”. “Isa Ibn Maryam” is translated as “Jesus son of Mary”, thus through this dream, too, I realise Jesus is not the son of God. The significance of Damascus is that Jesus will descend upon the White minaret of Damascus in his second coming (Muslim belief).

Therefore, my dreams were in accordance with the Muslim beliefs of Jesus (pbuh).

Dissection + personal commentary was by Yahya Snow

Is “Pinar’s” story genuine?

Her story sounds far-fetched. Perhaps it was made up by somebody from the anti-Muslim website. Here are a few more fake “convert” stories; Mohammad Khan’s YouTube channel explores what are perceived to be fake “converts” (famously this channel helped bring the Christian evangelist Ergun Caner to account for his deception :

(Ironically Ergun Caner looks uncannily like the owner of the website (Sam Shamoun) which featured “Pinar’s conversion story” )

Here is a real convert (ex Christian Deacon Jerald Dirks):
Part 1:

Part 2:

Those who want to convert to Islam or learn more about Islam may visit:

Useful site:


Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:

So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV

Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)

Another one:

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39)

Monday, 2 August 2010

YouTuber Calls David Wood/Nabeel Qureshi Deceptive and Hypocritical (Dearborn "Christians" looking bad AGAIN) :(

This evening I checked my mail and received a request from an individual who had an “encounter” with Acts17Apologetics on their YouTube page. Yes, you guessed it; it ended up with him being SILENCED.

What in the world is going on? You have David wood and Nabeel Qureshi presenting themselves as the paragons of free speech (insert related idiom here) whilst censoring their critics and any interlocutors who bring up potent points/issues

Before donating cash to these people ask yourselves whether these individuals are consistent.

A You Tube user named (twofolddeamer) sent me this:

I have had an interesting conversation (what can only be described as the free exchange of ideas in a peaceful manner) with the folks at acts17apologetics and (surprise surprise) have been blocked and my comments deleted (obscured would be a better description of what went on). I am writing an account of this encounter as we speak and would really like you to consider posting it on your blog.

Are you interested?
I would really appreciate a platform to describe my encounter with these hypocrites. I can send it within the hour.


Twofolddeamer then sent me the content of his encounter with this controversial Christian group:

I (twofolddeamer) began a conversation a few days ago on the acts17apologetics youtube channel. I have been following what has been described as the 'Dearborn saga' for a while now and I have found the whole issue to be of great interest and I decided to clarify some points that seemed a bit ambiguous with acts17apologetics themselves. After hearing numerous comments about the abuses of free speech that take place on the acts17 youtube channel - people being blocked and comments deleted for no more than challenging their positions etc - I began with this...

But why do you also block youtube users who have 1) engaged in peaceful conversation and who have not been offensive in the slightest and 2) who have just asked questions of a challenging nature? (kind of like the questions that you stress are so important for your ministry to be asking muslims)

i can understand the blocking of users who drop offensive comments, like the one below, but why people who only challenge and voice opposition, especially when done in a non offensive manner? i mean it does seem that this whole issue with the dearborn authorities revolves around this very issue, but yet you deny this right to people who are doing exactly the same thing that you claim you're doing - asking tough questions in a staightforward yet civil manner. Why?

*I also added this question which was posted alongside it (so far so good)...

Acts17Apologetics responds to this YouTube user:

twofolddeamer said: "But why do you also block youtube users who have 1) engaged in peaceful conversation and who have not been offensive in the slightest and 2) who have just asked questions of a challenging nature?"

I don't recall ever blocking people who ask respectful questions. If you go through the comments section here, you will see tons of people asking challenging questions. We block people for (1) foul language, and (2) deliberate deception.

Commentary from twofolddeamer: So there you have it. They block people for (1) foul language and (2) deliberate deception. This last part seemed a big vague to me at the time so I decided to ask for clarification on what was meant by 'deliberate deception'...

Thankyou for getting back to me, I appreciate it :) 'deliberate deception' sounds a bit vague though....could you explain what you mean by this please.

Also, when you get a chance, would you mind answering my second question about why you did not purchase a booth at the Arab festival for your evangelizing purposes, especially when this seemed like the most effective avenue for sharing the gospel with the muslims of dearborn. Thanks again.

*Here is what I got back...

Acts17Apologetics replies to this YouTube user:

When I say, "deliberate deception," I don't mean someone who says something I disagree with. I mean someone who says, "I saw you at the festival screaming at someone," or something to that effect. If someone says something like this, they aren't merely saying something that's false; they're lying.

We also usually delete racist comments (e.g. "camel jockey").

As for the booth, what makes you think it's the most effective way to reach Muslims? Most Muslims won't even approach a Christian booth. To give you an idea of how the "booth" rule works, in 2008, when Ministry to Muslims was free to walk around the festival handing out materials, they distributed 37,000 packets of Christian materials. In 2009, when they were restricted to a booth, they distributed 500. Sitting in a booth is extremely restrictive. Most Muslims don't want to be seen at such a booth. That's the idea behind the booths. Why on earth would I sit at a booth when I can walk around talking to Muslims?

Twofolddeamer’s commentary: Okay so by 'deliberate deception' you do not mean that you block people for saying something that you disagree with. I now go on to address the other issues that I feel are raised by Nabeel or David's reply and begin to state my position on the Arab festival issue. It was a long post that was separated into 8 segments. I shall post it here as it was posted there...

Twofolddeamer then posts a number of comments explaining his thoughts in a reasonable manner:

I see. Thankyou once again for clarifying.

So if you were not keen on the booth concept why did you not utilize the free speech zone at the festival which had been allocated for people to proselytize as they wanted? At least in this way the people you would be speaking to would be there out of genuine curiosity - sounds reminiscent of speakers square in Hyde park corner. I am just surprised that you did not use that avenue after deciding not to purchase a booth.

Alot of what I am about to say you may disagree with (almost certainly will) but I would like to put forward my take on this issue if you would not mind? I feel personally that by you going to the festival to 'see how things are this year' implies that in some sense you were 'looking for trouble'. Many people saw the videos which you posted from last year and no doubt felt quite incensed by what happened and by the conclusions that you drew - on both sides and for different reasons. Having looked at the videos I must say that I thought initially Nabeel was quite aggressive in his approach to the muslim men at their booth. You had clearly not asked permission to film the guys there at first and when you were politely asked to refrain from filming you walked away briskly voicing accusations of "deception". I feel that this was very disengenuous on your part.

Surely the civil thing would have been to ask the members of that booth beforehand if they minded being filmed answering your questions. Most people do not like being filmed by strangers in this manner and perhaps in future you will recognize this fact. Do not forget that this episode was the genesis of this saga.

It is true that afterwards they did call you back which at that point the security got involved. Don't get me wrong I do not agree with the way in which you have been treated at certain points during this episode. However, I do think that you should take time for some self reflection and not always presume that you are in the right or that God is automatically with you and on your side - He is not. It seems obvious to myself and many others that all you have acheived with this dearborn saga is controversy and discord - which could have easily been avoided with a bit of foresight and wisdom.

I am sorry if I am wrong about this but I get the impression that 'trouble' is what you were after. You would probably counter this by saying that I should examine the videos for evidence of you being aggressive to passers by etc. However, I'm sure you realise that a person or group can behave quite aggressively whilst remaining passive on the surface and this is the impression that I get about you as a group. Ultimately God will judge you and only He truely knows your real intentions.

You also you credit yourself with journalistic integrity but the conclusions and headlines you post on your blog seem overly sensationalist and seem to have more in common with the type of yellow journalsim that masquerades biased opinion for objective facts. Sadly what you, almost certainly, have achieved with your approach is further alienation and polarization between the muslim and christian community, which really is a shame.

Though the irony in all this is that your ministry seems to have quite the opposite effect to what it is supposed to (I am assuming that as christians you want to spread the gospel) - you actually galvanise muslims and make their faith stronger by the approach that you take and in doing so only attract the most vociferous and anti muslim elements within the christian community for support, people who probably would never challenge you simply because of the negative views they already have about islam and muslims.

Finally, you mentioned that the christian booth in 2009 only managed to distribute, and therefore reach a mere 500 people. To this I cannot help but wonder.......during this entire affair - how many people do you think you have reached with the gospel message in Dearborn, Michigan?

p.s sorry that there were so many posts, I didn't realise I had typed so much :)

Commentary from twofolddeamer: So there it is (again so far so good) I believe that it is clear that I had stated my position in a polite and civil manner and the free exchange of ideas and opinion was in full flow. Before there was any reply from acts17apologetics I had one from this user (glentubin)...

NOTE: glentubin’s comments have been omitted as they are irrelevant to the discussion related to acts17’s censorship of twofolddeamer; this is done in a part for the sake of brevity.

Twofoldeamer gives more commentary: I decided to address a couple of points this user brought up and then proceeded to politely press
acts17 for a response to the 'free speech zone' issue...

Twofolddeamer’s reply to glentubin:


"One should not have to rent a booth in a public place to promote their religion"

1) The Arab festival, as far as I know, was not actually on public property. The area ceases to be public property during the event and becomes private property. From what I can tell this is pretty much standard practice for festivals of this nature throughout the US.

"Dearborn should have their festival at an Islamic Center and then there will be no Christians"

2) The Arab festival was a cultural festival - not a religious one.

Perhaps acts17apologetics will confirm whether the points are correct or not. I would also really appreciate an answer from my earlier post regarding the option of the free speech zone that was available and why you did not utilize it? Thanks again :)

*This was the reply that I got...

Acts17Apologetics reply:

twofolddeamer, As for the public land suddenly becoming un-public, the mayor is the only one I've ever heard this from. Not even the police or the prosecuting attorney have said this to us. It's public land, and a public event, being patrolled by public servants (the police).

But this has nothing to do with our case. Granting that the land suddenly becomes private, festival rules allow us to record all we want and to have all the discussions we want.

As for the "free speech zone," we didn't hear about this until three weeks after our arrests. But it's a ridiculous concept. What are the other zones? Sharia zones? No free speech zones?

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. THERE WAS NO RULE SAYING WE CAN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION. So why should we go to a booth or a free speech zone? Just to make Muslims happy?

Twofolddeamer gives more commentary: Now this is where the issue gets interesting because to this reply I posted another in return which all in all consisted of about 6-7 segments (much like the earlier one) explaining my disagreement with some of the things said and I further explained my position regarding how I feel acts17apologetics are being less than objective in the matter being discussed.
I say that this gets interesting because once I had finished posting the 6-7 segment rebuttal, I left the computer and waited for my comments to pass through the approval process (they have comments pending lock on). When I returned a bit later I was shocked to see that only the last segment to my post was visible with a reply from Nabeel/David accusing me of deception. I also realised by now that the rest of my post (the majority) had been deleted. To my surprise I had also been blocked!!!! Now first things first I am going to post the last segment that Nabeel or David allowed through followed by the reply they gave...

Twofoldeamer’s final segment before being censored by Acts17Apologetics:

You ended your last post to me by asking: "So why should we go to a booth or a free speech zone? Just to make Muslims happy?"

To this I would reply - No, not because it "makes Muslims happy" but for the purpose of social harmony and the safety of fellow festival goers. Like I mentioned, you must have been aware of how unpopular you are, and due to the perception that many have of you there was a significant chance of an escalation. I think that it is a shame that you were arrested as I think that a better option would have been just to eject you from the event and ban you outright for attempting to sow discord there. Anyway I appreciate you letting me share my views again. Take care :)

Acts17Apologetics block the user and say:

twofolddeamer said: " think that it is a shame that you were arrested as I think that a better option would have been just to eject you from the event and ban you outright for attempting to sow discord there."

You're deliberately misrepresenting what happened. (And feel free to do it somewhere else from now on.) The videos show Nabeel walking out of the festival to eat his falafel, and Muslim youths asking him questions about Christianity. Conversations start off with angry Muslims accusing us, and end peacefully after Nabeel diffuses the anger and directs the conversation towards better issues. But somehow, in the minds of hate-filled critics, this becomes an attempt on our part to sow discord. It's sad that people would be so irrational, and so utterly devoid of concern for freedom of speech.

Commentary from twofolddeamer:

What acts17apologetics have perpetrated in this instance is what I can only describe as deliberate deception. The preceding paragraphs that I posted were deleted and that is where I thoroughly explained my position. These deleted posts gave context to the conclusion I gave (the part they let through) and without the other segments my position is misrepresented and the conclusion I gave without elucidation. By deleting, and therefore deliberately obscuring, all the previous comments and then blocking me they have well and truly stifled my freedom of speech and misrepresented my position -- exactly the same thing that they accuse everyone else of doing to them.

This pair wax lyrical about the virtues of freedom of speech and how important it is to be able to allow the free exchange of ideas.
David Wood in one of his recent videos - Acts 17 Enters the Dearborn Arab Festival (PART ONE) - mentioned how important it is for people to be able to voice concern and present opposition and that this is what essentially makes America great. I do not expect everyone to agree with my conclusions or be happy with them but I do expect the members of acts17apologetics to practice what they preach. By blocking me they have shown conclusively that they do block people who challenge them - even when it is done in a civil and peaceful manner. There can be no other conclusion to be made from this except that they are hypocrites of the highest order. Here is my last post on that channel before I was blocked in its entirety, with all the parts that they deliberately obscured (lucky I saved it before huh). I will include the last segment that they allowed through as well. Here goes...

Interjection by myself (Yahya Snow)it is interesting to note Sam Shamoun was mentioned here (in the final segment) and to me Acts17Apologetics seem to be embarrassed with their association with such a hate-filled individual. God willing more on this relationship will be disclosed in future posts

Twofolddeamer’s final segment (which was saved by twofolddeamer):

I understand in some respects how the concept of a free speech zone sounds - many will instantly jump to the conclusion that all the other areas are non free speech zones (or in your case Sharia zones.....really??!!! c'mon) rather than consider that there might be a more nuanced explanation. From what I can tell the area in which the festival is held each year is on public space in an area made up of sidewalks and shops. When the area is transformed into a festival certain considerations arise due to the huge amount of visitors attending and the health and safety of those patrons. Although in the West people enjoy a certain amount of freedom of speech it is not an absolute right, especially if that speech infringes upon the rights of someone else. I think that it makes perfect sense in this situation to allocate an area (like a speakers corner) where patrons and organizations like yourself can go and proselytyze or have their say about whatever they want whilst drawing a crowd which will not endanger or disrupt the traffic of other festival goers. I think that this is a reasonable idea in light of the context and is hardly ridiculous as you have stated.

You probably knew that your ministry would draw a lot of attention at the Arab festival this year due to the videos you posted last year and the high number of views those videos got.


To that I would have to agree. But let's try and be objective here. This was not just a couple, or a few, regular guys striking up a conversation and debating the finer points of christian and muslim theology during a cultural festival - was it? You are part of an organization who, whether rightfully or wrongfully, are seen by many as being islamophopic and deeply antagonistic to the muslim community in America and therefore court a significant amount of controversy.

You were walking around the festival filming like a news crew searching for controversy and your videos do show this. You are known purely for your negative focus upon the muslim faith and although you stress how much you love muslims, I personally think you have a funny way of showing it. You associate with people like Robert Spencer and Sam Shamoun, who in particular is known for his unpleasent vitriol directed at muslims, and so in many ways your association there seems like an endorsment to many.

That aside I think that most people would be able to understand the point I am making. You really cannot paint this issue in such broad strokes of black and white. You were always going to draw crowds of people who had seen your previous videos and some, like Hakeem, were bound to feel incensed by the way you portray muslims and the muslims of dearborn. I do not agree with the way Hakeem behaved, not at all, however if you wade through all the expletives you can see that he hit the nail on the head when he asked 'why are you coming here to make us look bad'.

Again whether right or wrong that is how people saw you that day - that was their perception - just as it is your perception that Sharia law and the folk devil boogey man muslim is eroding the American constitution.

You ended your last post to me by asking: "So why should we go to a booth or a free speech zone? Just to make Muslims happy?"

To this I would reply - No, not because it "makes Muslims happy" but for the purpose of social harmony and the safety of fellow festival goers. Like I mentioned, you must have been aware of how unpopular you are, and due to the perception that many have of you there was a significant chance of an escalation. I think that it is a shame that you were arrested as I think that a better option would have been just to eject you from the event and ban you outright for attempting to sow discord there. Anyway I appreciate you letting me share my views again. Take care :)

Commentary by twofolddeamer: As can be seen, the only deliberate deception taking place comes from the group known as acts17apologetics, aka Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood. I am afraid to say that everything I have heard about you is true, you are nothing but a pair of hypocrites.

My Thoughts

The Acts17 (answeringmuslims) team had an opportunity to show class and preach to twofolddeamer during this interaction. They had an opportunity to impress and bring this YouTube user closer to their Trinitarian theology. Instead they have repulsed such an individual. Way to preach guys!

Twofolddreamer has gone away with a poor impression of this controversial group, moreover ths impression could impact on his view of other missionary groups thus the practice of David Wood and co will further damage the Church. For quite a while, I have been forming the opinion this group operates (falsely) under the guise of the church with the attention of grabbing attention and cash donations

You can make of this encounter what you will. I simply put it forward for people to form their own opinions. I have conveyed the twofolddeamer’s side of the story here...there are always two sides to every coin.

PS, this user, twofolddeamer ,seems like a smart and articulate chap...surely the smart and articulte ones would be the prime candidates to reach out to. If you get the more resourceful on board you can really go places. Why did David Wood/Nabeel Qureshi miss the boat (quite spectatcularly) on this one?

I have noticed a common trait shared by extreme groups; they avoid the smart people like the plague and opt for the less cereberal as they are deemed to be more pliable and thus easier to manipulate

NOTE: Any highlighting via bold text was done by myself for personal emphasis

MORE censorship by Acts17Apologetics:

Any information concerning malpractice by ministries: yahyasnow@hotmail.com