Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Police Report Claim and Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics

Right, a few days ago, on Friday the 24th of March, Lizzie Schofield of Jay Smith’s Pfander Centre for Apologetics alerted me to a video in which she claimed somebody simulated her being shot via special video effect:

Lizzie Schofield Yahya Snow Do you have any comment on this video? This video that accuses me of being from a 'hate group' while including a special effect of me being shot in the head?

As for her being part of a hate group, Pfander Ministries, I do believe Jay Smith and his group do regularly spew Islamophobic sentiment and comments but this is not a discussion for now.

Lizzie goes on to claim she has reported the video in question to the police and the Home Office (an organisation which deals with counter terrorism):

Lizzie Schofield I've reported it to the police and the home office.

My initial thoughts must have been, oh no we have an idiot on the loose who has literally simulated the shooting of someone, hence my comment:

Yahya Snow Lizzie no I don't agree with that video. I absolutely deplore any intimidation or anything immature that will leave somebody intimidated. Much less a mother and wife like yourself. I have a sense of respect for you and I recognise you to be he most willing person out of Smith's group to attempt to converse.
I will try to investigate it. It's certainly nothing to do with me.
PM me if you want to message in private. Will try to get back to you after doing some investigations. I've got a meeting right now. Promise to look into it ASAP and relay back to you. God bless.

However, after viewing what the fuss was about I didn't feel anybody was simulating shooting Lizzie or anybody else for that matter, I just recognised it to be a video effect that other debate channels feature such as Sa Neter TV and Titans TV. These channels regularly clip a few heated moments in the debate for the introduction of the video and have a fireball-type of effect to represent a fired up discussion or a flash point within the discussion. Thus I was confident the gentleman who made the video was not trying to intimidate Lizzie our anybody else:

Yahya Snow Lizzie, whilst waiting fir my colleagues to turn up I have just skimmed that video and I assume you were referencing the effects at the start of the video. I think you've misunderstood that effect, it is an imitation of what Kamal from Titans TV does at the beginning of his vids. Check his vids out. In turn i think he vipied from Sa Neter TV based in the US ft amateur street debates.
I am confident this had no ill intent behind it.

Lizzie Schofield There's no ambiguity. It's clearly designed to simulate me being shot in the back if the head. Are you seriously telling me he intended something else? A firework? Come on.

Yahya Snow Lizzie come on. I can hand on heart say this is not a simulation of some violent act. The guy has just copied those effects. Let me get in touch with him.

My confidence grew in this regard in my subsequent dialogues with the video maker. He was completely calm and went to the police station that night – I believe he went to two but they were closed (both in East London).

Yahya Snow Spoken to the guy and he's explained it too. He said he wanted to show it was a heated dialogue. Anyways I do feel it is an over reaction. I've told him to go into the police station himself.

I did get a few messages from the gentleman in question after he got in touch with the police over the weekend. I reported this back to Lizzie. Not only did the police consider it to be a laughable accusation they also found no record of a police report being filed.

Yahya Snow Hi Lizzie, I just got a few messages from the gentleman who made the video. He has been to the police station, the police laughed it off and actually thought one of the hate comments thought to be from a Pfander Ministries supporter in the comment section on YouTube was more serious than the video effect!

They did say there's no record of any police report filed - they could not find any such report. It's a good thing you didn't file a report as it would have just been wasting police time I assume. They also told him if it was a terrorism matter he would have received a knock on his door within a day or two so it doesn't look like the Home Office received a report either.
Anyways I do think that gentleman is too gentle as the police gave him the option to report the hateful comment by the Pfander supporter, he declined.

The message from the gentleman in question:

Ok the police laughed it off and they said there was no report that they can find on the system , and there is no way police will arrest me or something like that , they actually said the Cooke [he meant “comment”] the I showed them about me , that is more of a thing than my special Fx , and asked me do I want to make a report , I said no it's ok , as I know it's just hot air and I DNT want to make a big thing out it , and they said anything inciting hate etc Youtube etc have their on code of conducts and if they deem that its with in there guide line then it's ok and I got nothing to worry about .!!

[NOTE: to say Lizzie lied based on this will be unfair as she may have filed it at a local station etc. - she can explain whether she did or didn't file a report]

Another word on the video effect, the inception point of the effect is on a frame where Lizzie Schofield is not even in. Slow it down and you will see. The camera man in the background and Paul Williams' hand are in and around the inception point of the effect - not Lizzie. Lizzie does enter the frame and the effect culminates covering her head (which I would advise anybody making videos not to do in the future).

Here's a similar effect from Titans TV ( a channel which I do not recommend):

Are Hamza Myatt and SaRa going to lodge complaints to the police and claim Titans TV are simulating some sort of harm against them? Nope. They understand the video effect. This is the inception of the video effect before Lizzie enters the frame

Now I understand Jay Smith attempts to radicalise and manipulate his followers by over-exaggerating the threat from Muslims. He is even on record saying he “expects to be killed by Muslims” someday and that Muslims are meant to kill him (and all Christians)! This is the Christian persecution complex, it’s delusional on the part of Pfander Ministries' Smith, Jay Smith has been operating amongst Muslims for decades in Africa and Europe. Nobody has killed him.

It gets more ironic as Lizzie in the video says “Muslims, I love you” while waving at some Muslims who are standing a matter of feet away, I found this to come across as infantilizing these Muslims which is completely in sync with the way Jay Smith regularly speaks to Muslims, the issue here is that it would be quite natural to assume the person who posted the video was one of the individuals who was only a matter of feet away from you (i.e. one of those who you claimed to love). Rather than jumping to the conclusion of your beloved threatening you by simulating you being shot why not hang fire (pun intended) and just get in touch with those who you love and ask them what the special effect signified as well as expressing any concerns you may have.

Isn’t that better than jumping to the most sinister and paranoid conclusion about a Muslim you just, a matter of days ago, told you loved. Not to mention then subsequently claiming you’ve reported him to the Home Office and the police (which seems to be a false claim unless evidence to the contrary crops up)?

I suspect Lizzie Schofield is more rattled at being accused of being part of a "hate group" hence her this saga.

This folks is the product of Jay Smith’s toxicity. Lizzie, I’ve been made to understand was a nicer and friendlier individual before joining Jay Smith’s and Beth Grove’s Pfander Centre for Apologetics.

Now I’m not entirely sure if it is an offence to claim you’ve reported something to the police while you have not. If it is an offence, I would strongly recommend folks do not report Lizzie Schofield. She has a family and it would be unfair on her family to put that type of stress on them.

I would put a lot of the blame of the big wigs at Pfander Centre for Apologetics. Jay Smith has a lot of explaining to do. Smith is a man who is near retirement, he’s made his money and he has no interest in proper employment for the future – he has nothing to lose in ratcheting up anti-Muslim and anti-Islam friction. He's not even planning on staying in Britain any longer despite his decades of sowing more division between Muslims and Christians in Britain!

 I wouldn't be surprised if Jay Smith is looking to step things up to try and fulfil his “expectation” that Muslims will kill him. He’s and Islamophobe, Muslims should stay well away from him and certainly not allow themselves to be provoked into rash actions. He is a provocateur. Leave him be, nobody of a serious-mindset takes him serious. Neither should you!

Here's a video where the Islamophobe Jay Smith states he expects to be killed by Muslims. This explains the paranoia around Muslims from his followers - he drums it into them that Muslims want to kill him (and presumably them!)

Here's a video of more fear-mongering from Jay Smith of a similar nature in keeping with his attempts to instil paranoia into the minds of his followers concerning Muslims, he even claims Muslims are meant to kill him (and other Christians!) [2.10 time frame] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMcdepFvYxo

Here's the video in question featuring Lizzie and the fire effect:

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

Pfander Ministries Blog on Hijab by Lizzie Schofield

A few bits of commentary on some statements made by Lizzie Schofield who works (?) for Jay Smith’s group called Pfander Centre for Apologetics. Lizzie proffers her unfortunate and misguided view on hijab which is effectively a smear:

What is the hijab all about? It’s an outward reminder of female oppression by a religion that subjugates women in almost every area of life.

Firstly, this is not true – we can discuss all this at a later date.

Secondly, when she says the hijab is “a reminder of female oppression by a religion that subjugates women in almost every area of life” it’s actually not the religion she is attacking – she’s actually attacking Muslim men. The religion cannot practically enforce anything – never mind female subjugation – it’s the adherents of that faith who practically enforce and encourage religious practices. For instance the Biblical teaching of no remarriage after divorce is not a case of the Bible/Christianity subjugating women to this law but rather the Christian community.

This, “I’m attacking Islam not Muslims” slogan in many cases is a sneaky cop-out used by Islamophobes which sadly many people (Muslims included!) don’t cotton on to. Critics like Lizzie Schofield are criticising Muslims and dressing it up as solely a criticism of Islam. They may not notice that they are actually attacking Muslims hence their howls of protest when called Islamophobes but in all reality they are attacking Muslims. But, what type of Muslims is Lizzie targeting here?

Lizzie draws a dichotomy between Muslims in the East and Muslims in the West:

There are two narratives around the hijab. The first is that of the Western muslimah, which says “I like wearing the veil. It’s my way of expressing my faith. No-one forces me to do it, it’s my choice.” And because running and swimming is awkward with a hijab, when companies produce Muslim-friendly sportswear making it easier for these women to exercise, this improves their choices. This is a good thing.

Then there is the other narrative, or rather the uncomfortable reality that wearing the hijab for most Muslim women around the world is not a meaningful choice, either because it is illegal or due to prohibitive social pressure. How often do Saudi or Afghan or Somali women wander the streets of their countries without a hijab? Even if they say to themselves “I don’t feel like wearing it today,” they cannot act on their feeling without consequences.

This is not the first time Pfander have drawn an uncomfortable dichotomy between Easterners and Westerners – see Jay Smith’s degrading comments on non-Westerners.

It’s great Lizzie Schofield is not plying the propaganda narrative of oppressed Muslim women in Britain and the rest of the West. I appreciate that but I assume the copious number of Muslim ladies in the West who have communicated the hijab is worn as a choice, specifically their choice, has something to do with her not willing to impugn Muslims in the West of such a charge.

But why treat the Muslims in the East differently?

I suspect Lizzie Schofield and her cohorts on the right wing, be they “Christian evangelists” or just regular right wingers with or without the jackboots, don’t really hear much from or about Muslim women in the East and the little they do hear is filtered to portray a certain narrative. To be fair, this will be the case for pretty much most people in the West albeit those not marooned in the right wing are more willing to look at alternative views to scope a wider perspective.

As examples of Muslim ladies being forced to wear the hijab, Lizzie picks Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Somalia. Afghanistan is a war-torn country, the Christians in the West really know how to turn weaker countries into those, so let’s discount Afghanistan. Somalia’s population according to Worldometers is less than 11.5m and Saudi’s is just over 32.5m.

Why didn’t Lizzie not go to the most populous Muslim country, Indonesia? The population of Indonesia is over 260m. A quarter of a billion! There’s no country-wide hijab law as far as I’m aware. Correct me if I’m wrong, the same applies to Pakistan – the second largest Muslim country (over 160m). And how about India, a non-Muslim country, which has the 2nd greatest number of Muslims living in it after Indonesia.

There’s no country-wide law enforcing hijab in any of those countries. It seems Lizzie is being quite selective. Sadly, this is not uncommon for Pfander Ministiries.

But let’s go back to Saudi Arabia and Somalia (I haven’t checked the law in Somalia but let’s just assume Lizzie is correct and the hijab is mandated by the law of the land there), none of this would support Lizzie’s assertion that there’s no meaningful choice. Generally, countries mandate laws which the majority of the population support, has Lizzie ever thought that most of the women in those two countries actually agree with their respective laws on hijab?

Is this a Western supremacist idea playing out? A case of “oh those Easterners don’t really want to live by such and such laws, they want to live like Westerners, so clearly their governments are forcing laws on to them”?

I do wonder if Lizzie and her fellow right wing evangelical colleagues in the West say the same thing about places like Uganda and their anti-gay laws, is Lizzie really willing to say the Christians there are forced to oppose homosexuality?

Be honest Lizzie, how many Somali and Saudi women have you spoken to? Let’s pay for your ticket to Saudi Arabia and jet you off there – I’m not willing to send you off to Afghanistan as I’m worried some Christian plane flying overhead will drop a bomb on your head. We wouldn’t want you to experience the misery inflicted on Afghans simply because some Christian soldiers, who are squatting on Native American land (post the genocide of said natives), are puppets for their natural-resources addicted elite who “serve” a growing number of civilians drunk on Islamophobia.

Anyways, pack your burkha and let’s jet you off to Saudi! [Note before you do jet off please remove your reference to Aqsa Parvez, to misuse her murder for your propaganda is shameless. Utterly shameless.]

Lizzie also mentions some small protest in Iran against the law on hijab. I didn’t check it out but hey, let’s run with it. OK, so there’s a small Iranian group protesting against one of their laws. There’s many small groups protesting against certain things in Europe i.e against abortion, immigration (Muslim immigration!) and gay marriage or those protesting against bans on acts such as bestiality. There are people protesting all sorts of laws in every country – perhaps not in North Korea. Let’s not make a big deal out of it, Lizzie.

Considering, in my last interaction with Lizzie’s blog material I pointed out Christian countries are the worst behaved sexually than any other countries one would think Lizzie wouldn’t be so quick to jump on the wagon promoting a less moderate environment for others who aren’t inflicted with the same sexually debauched societies as that which Westernised Christians have produced?

Lizzie Schofield, not only lives in one of the most sexually ill-disciplined societies in the world but she lives in one where the female body is used to market anything from cars, movies, casinos, video games etc.. Not to mention, your average woman here really can’t go out without make-up now – such is the point of no return this “Westernised Christian” society has reached. I challenge Lizzie Schofield, Hatun Tash, Sarah Foster and Beth Grove to go sans make-up for a few weeks when on their trips out to Hyde Park. Doubt they will be willing to take it up even if the Islamophobe Jay Smith asks them to!

Folks, when our women dread to go outside without make-up we know our societies have destroyed the self-esteem of women here. Westernised Christian culture is ruining women’s self esteem and confidence. Sadly, Lizzie, a victim of this “Westernised Christian” culture in an effort to avoid dealing with the problems at home wants to point fingers at societies that are purer than those produced by “Westernised Christians”.

Lizzie, you’re not fooling anybody half-way smart. And you’re not attracting anybody smart with your ideas and arguments.

There’s also a shoddy argument from Lizzie that the hijab doesn’t help against sexual harassment. She cites some survey from Egypt indicating 99% of women have experienced sexual harassment – I’m not convinced with that survey.

The problem here is Lizzie isn’t doing a like for like comparison. If you really want to find out if the hijab plays a role in helping women to avoid unwanted attention and advances from strange men the social research has to be conducted in the same place and the results are more credible if the same volunteer is used. Karim Metwaly’s social experiment in New York of the same woman wearing hijab and not wearing hijab whilst walking the streets of NY for 5 hours in each dress code supports the view the hijab does discourage men from sexually harassing women.

Surely the thinking Christian will be asking why Lizzie’s Westernised version of Christianity is inferior to Islam in that it doesn’t help women avoid catcalls and other unwanted harassment from men whilst Islam does offer something very practical which actually works. The same goes for alcohol, Islam offers a better view on alcohol than Westernised Christianity. If the Christians at Pfander Ministries believe Islam is from the devil then they have an issue in trying to explain why this religion has better moral teachings than their Christianity? Another question to lob in if they really believe Muslims follow a satanic faith, why are Muslims better behaved sexually than Christians (Christians believe they have the Holy Spirit guiding them)?

Lizzie in her pre-emptive efforts to fend off shrieks of hypocrisy puts her foot in her mouth as she effectively admits she’s a liberal Christian and that she, if consistent, is arguably closer to believing Paul of Tarsus was oppressing women:

Are Christians being hypocritical here? Occasionally at Speaker’s Corner I get admonished for not wearing a head covering by Muslims. They quote 1 Corinthians 11:4-6:

Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[a] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

If, for the sake of argument, we take the most conservative interpretation of these verses and assume that married Christian women today are to cover their heads, there are two things to note here. 1. It is a symbolic gesture of submission to her husband, a husband who is instructed to love her “like Christ loves the church, who gave himself up for her “(Ephesians 5:25). 2. It is subject to constraints, i.e. for wives at a church gathering and only when she prays or prophesies. She is not being told to cover her head as she goes about her daily life.

Firstly, saying the headcovering is a conservative Christian understanding is an admission that her group are liberal (Westernised Christians). What else are they liberals on, gay marriage, abortion, sex before marriage, dating, women’s dress codes, female clergy etc.?
Secondly, Paul of Tarsus was ordering women to dress a certain way thus they were meant to submit to a dress code given to them by a man (Paul of Tarsus)

The Jesus scholar, Geza Vermes, thought Paul of Tarsus ordered women to wear veils on their heads because he thought they would tempt angels:

The idea of potential sexual rapport between angels and women continued to float in the air even as late as in the New Testament times. Indeed, when St Paul forbade the female members of the church of Corinth to attend Christian assemblies with the head uncovered, he justified this prohibition by his belief that the sight of their hair might lead astray some passing-by sons of heaven: 'That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels', Paul insisted (1 Cor 11:10).

If Vermes' view concerning Pauls' reasoning is correct one wonders how many early Christians thought hijab-less women as a temptation to sin. After all, if they thought angels could not resist unveiled Christian women then what about the lay Christians? So why in the world are they freely mixing with uncovered Christian women at churches every Sunday? Not only that, what about day to day activities?

Christians need to stop presenting Christianity as secularism with a belief in a trinity and blood sacrifice. It's not.

Paul's alleged precaution against sexual sin (the hijab) has largely been ignored by most Christian women. We would very much encourage Christian women to ignore Paul on his mistakes but act upon the teachings which have a ring of truth to them. The hijab is something Mary wore and something which all women should strive for. Of course, we as Muslims are not going to accept the idea that angels are tempted to sexual sin. Muslims believe angels do not disobey God.

Why are Christian men so lax in encouraging the hijab? For some reason, Christians follow Paul theologically to the letter yet ignore him practically as in this case. I'd like to see Christians ignore Paul theologically and adopt Paul's teaching of hijab...

You don't have to believe Paul's alleged reasoning for the hijab, just start handing out hijabs to women who claim to love Jesus (p).

PS You can get all your hijabs from an Islamic centre near you, please pick some literature up on the way out. Thanks. May God bless you.
Analysed: Lizzie Schofield talking to Muslims about the hijab

Sunday, 19 March 2017

Mike Licona Rebuked by Muslims: Spreading Deceit About Shk Ahmed Deedat

The spin around the speculation that Shk Ahmed Deedat read a bit from Josh McDowell’s book before he passed away is outlandish. It’s disappointing to see somebody like Dr Mike Licona spreading such intellectually dishonest suggestions.

Mike Licona stated “Deedat was apparently having second thoughts about Islam and was taking another look at Jesus”. He bases this wild-eyed suggestion on speculation that Shk. Deedat read a portion from Josh McDowell’s book the day before he passed away.

This claim was out to Shk. Ahmed Deedat’s son who responded by dismissing it as deception and a ploy to promote Josh McDowell’s book. Shk. Deedat’s son also indicated Shk. Deedat would never leave Islam.

It’s well known Shk. Deedat was debating Christians and propagating Islam on his sick bed thus it would come as no surprise that he would read Christian missionary literature as it would be part of his research and debate preparation. Mike Licona and other Christian apologists read material from the likes of Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins as part of their apologetics research and debate preparation, it would be dishonest to suggest they were having second thoughts about their faith based on them simply reading such material. Mike Licona should be able to see how wild and deceitful this claim is!

Sadly, Licona doesn’t appear to be the only one who is passing on deceitful rumours about Shk. Deedat. Dr Nabeel Qureshi, in his book, does inform us of "other" people spreading the absurd rumour that Shk. Ahmed Deedat repudiated Islam whilst on his sick bed.
Let’s be clear here, these “other” people who claim Shk Deedat repudiated Islam on his deathbed are internet trolls. There’s no evidence for this whatsoever.

In fact just by reading his biography or news reports concerning Shk. Deedat’s passing away people can see this claim is a load of nonsense as he was serving Islam even whilst bed-ridden up to his passing away:

August 8 marks 10 years since Deedat’s death of kidney failure at the age of 87. He was bedridden for the final 10 years of his life, after suffering a stroke that left him paralysed and unable to speak.

Though doctors initially gave him little chance to live, Deedat continued to engage in religious work until his death – communicating by using a grid of the alphabet, which he used to spell out words letter-by-letter by signalling with his eyes.
[Al Jazeera]

For more in response to Nabeel Qureshi's comments on Shk Deedat please see here

It could well be that this rumour which "other" people were spreading evolved from wishful claims by Josh McDowell:

Josh McDowell said: Amazingly, a close relative of his came to me a few years ago when I was visiting South Africa and said, “I felt you needed to know some details around the death of Ahmad. The day before he died, he asked me to find a copy of your book More Than A Carpenter. So, I brought it to him and he read some of it.” We won’t know until after this life, but there’s a chance Ahmad Deedat is in heaven.

Josh McDowell in this public statement doesn’t go as far as Mike Licona. Mike Licona appears to spin Josh McDowell’s wishful speculation into a suggestion Shk. Deedat was having doubts about Islam. Mike’s comments are certainly deceitful - whether he got them from somebody else or whether he instigated such spin is for him to disclose. Josh McDowell is irresponsible with his comments – they too are misleading. Josh McDowell would surely know that apologists do read material from the other side in order to produce responses to their claims.

What we have here is at least two big name Christian apologists who should be ashamed of themselves. Mike Licona will, if consistent, call himself a “deceitful character and he will also say the same about Josh McDowell seen as he called a Muslim such for simply adopting the logical conclusion, based on Mike’s podcast comments, of Mike believing there’s a false prophecy in the New Testament from Paul of Tarsus.

Mike Licona, at the very least, should apologise publicly.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

Muslim Scholar Reacts Hijab Ban by European Court of Justice (Dr Yasir Qadhi)

The European Court of Justice, the highest court of the European Union, yesterday declared that it was legal for corporations to enforce a ban on all clothing that was of an overtly religious or political nature. Essentially, the equivalent of the Supreme Court of Europe ruled that it is permissible for any company to ban hijabs.

Where does one begin with the absurdity of such a ruling? How does one explain that the very civilization that prides itself on 'freedom' and 'liberty' gets so worked up about a piece of cloth on a woman's head?

The simple fact of the matter is, despite all of the claims of freedom, there are inherent biases that even European supreme court judges are not immune from. It is not 'religious clothing' that they are opposed to, even though that is the language that is used. It is, specifically, the hijab. Nothing else - all bans are incidental. The ban that will result on Sikh turbans or Jewish yarmulkes are unintended collateral damages, needed only to provide the veneer of legitimacy to claim that this ban wasn't solely meant for Muslim women who choose to cover.

Had the court ruled to to ban immodest clothing (short mini-skirts; cleavage showing; etc.), all of Europe would have been in an uproar. 'How dare you legislate what a woman may or may not wear?!' they would loudly proclaim. Yet, for a woman to wish to appear modestly, and to wish to avert lustful eyes from her persona, is somehow an affront to Western sensibilities. Whatever happened to 'live and let live' here?

It is quite simple, really. That they banned the hijab is actually totally understandable. The hijab really and truly frightens them. It is a slap on their face. Given the 'freedoms' they claim to offer women, that a group of women would then choose to turn away from those 'freedoms' and embrace the ultimate freedom of lowering themselves to the laws of the Creator is a rejection of their ideals and values. By choosing to wear the hijab, these sisters actually threaten the masculinity and superiority that many in the West feel. It is, in religious terms, blasphemy in their eyes - the exact equivalent of zealous fundamentalists not tolerating icons and shrines. Just as shrines seem to contradict perfect monotheism, so too does a woman's modesty apparently contradict the sexual freedom and liberties offered by Western society. So, for champions of such 'freedoms', the hijab is an affront that cannot be tolerated.

Frankly, I personally would have much less of a problem if their hatred were explicit. If they were to say, 'We wish to ban the hijab because we are a bunch of sexist, chauvinist Islamophobes', that would actually be so blunt as to not really elicit much of a response from me. To you be your way, and to me mine, and God will judge between us in the end.

But what irritates me to no end is the hypocritical claim of upholding freedom and liberty - the notion that somehow, ideals of individual choice and personal liberties are sacrosanct and inviolable in this society as long as no one else is harmed.

No, dear Europe, that is not just true. Stop pretending that you are bastions of liberty and freedom. Cases like these, and the utter lack of outcry generated, clearly demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy and falsehood of these claims.

Liberalism, it appears, can only tolerate a spectrum of liberals. Otherwise, liberalism is just as illiberal as religious fundamentalism. But at least the fundamentalists are honest with you about what they allow and don't!

From Dr Yasir Qadhi's FB

Friday, 10 March 2017

Muslim Interviews Sid Cordle of the Christian Peoples Alliance

Here's an interview I did with Sid Cordle of the Christian Peoples Alliance.

1. What is the aim of the Christian Peoples Alliance?

Government. But in the meantime to stand for righteousness and holiness and Christian values and see them promoted

2. I know it’s extremely unlikely but if there was a seismic shift on the British political landscape and your party was elected into government would we see Britain led under Christian teachings? For instance would you ban: sex outside marriage, homosexual marriage, gay clubs, strip clubs, betting shops, casinos, pornography, blasphemy and abortion?

We believe in freedom but we would promote good activities like faithfulness in marriage and remove Government subsidies from all immoral activity. We want open debates on what is right and what is wrong.

3. If you would/wouldn’t ban all those anti-Christian actions, what’s your reasoning for your decision?

I've said we believe in freedom. People have to make their own choices but we promote good, we don’t force it on people.

4. Correct me if I’m wrong but from what I gather your party is pro-Brexit, why is that?

1. The EU is anti democratic. The Commission which runs Europe is not elected. The European Parliament and Council of Ministers can only agree or disagree with the commission.

2. It is corrupt. Corruption is increasing up to almost 5% of the budget missing now and it is increasing year ion year

3. Abuse of human rights. We believe human rights is about freedom. The EU has made it about the right to abortion, same sex marriage assisted dying etc . which is wrong.

4. Hidden agendas to subvert Government decisions bit by bit in an ever closer union to create a Unites States of Europe.

5. Is your party inclusive of all Christian groups, are Catholics and Jehovah Witnesses welcome to join and be embraced as Christians by your party?

Not Jehovas Witnesses. They don’t believein voting or any political activity but Catholics absolutely yes.

6. I did watch your appearance on the BBC’s Daily Politics show and I felt you were being set up here somewhat by springing you with past tweets that are deemed controversial in a secular society. What are your thoughts on that line of questioning and do you stand by your comments? Interview can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXUfZYjhWlw

The interview showed massive disrespect especially when Andrew Neill said " because God is gay..." He would never have said to a Muslim " Because Allah is gay..." He would have been scared to have been attacked on the spot. I don’t mind aggressive fair questioning but I was asked to talk about the EU and they deliberately diverted the topic onto something else to try and make fun of me.

7. You did field a candidate in the Stoke by-election. How do you feel about the Labour win there and what are your thoughts on Paul Nuttall’s inability to win over the people of Stoke, is this yet another indication that UKIP is on the wane post the Brexit campaign ?

The Labour candidate was good but he won because of getting the votes of Muslims. The LIb Dems had a Muslim candidate but all the Muslims voted Labour . In one area they got 80% of the vote. They did this to get what they want from Labour. I thought Paul Nuttall was weak in the hustings and some of his policies were completely wrong, eg cancel overseas aid and just think about ourselves, supporting water boarding to get information from people. We didn’t do well but we made a lot of good contacts with the church leaders there and laid a good foundation for future campaigning in Stoke. Now onto Manchester Gorton. We are working within ourselves so we can move on rather than throwing everything into one campaign.

8. Britain and Europe is experiencing a rise in fascist and far-right groups which is precipitating a rise in Islamophobic attacks (attacks on mosques and Muslims as well as discrimination and abuse against Muslims), how would CPA propose to alleviate this concern?

Muslims are engaging in violence against Christians where they are in a majority far more than far right groups are attacking Muslims. What we stand for is open debate on the rights and wrongs of Christianity and Islam. We don’t want violence anywhere at all. We want debates on TV, in Universities and in schools so people can see Christianity is the truth and Islam is a false religion.The only hope for Islam is that people stay in ignorance of what it really stands for.

[Quite disappointed Sid didn't take this opportunity to denounce Islamophobia and suggest ways he and his colleagues will try to tackle it. I feel Sid Cordle really does need to chat with knowledgeable Muslims. Hopefully we can  organise a meeting with an imam or chats with Muslim apologists. I do feel this belief that Muslims are ignorant about what Islam really believes is totally unfair, has Sid ever considered the ignorance about Islam is at his end rather than at the end of over a billion Muslims who practice Islam in their everyday lives?]

9. What’s your view on Britain First? This is a group which has promoted itself with a Christian veneer at times. Although they aren’t a political party (yet!) are they not seen as competitors of CPA?

Britain First are a political party. They stood in the London elections and believe in violence to promote their ends and use violence. We do not under any circumstancces so we cannot support them and wouldn’t support them. Jesus was against all violence so they can call themselves Christian but they aren’t Christian. They are a competitor to the BNP and possibly UKIP but not the CPA. If people don’t see through them they could undermine Christianity but I think most people do see through them.

[To be fair to BF: I am not sure if they "believe in violence"]

10. CPA has protested the building of a mosque in West Ham. Will you ban mosques the building of new mosques if you gain power?

No. We protested the mega mosque because it was not wanted by the local community some of whom we represented, did not fit with the local plan, did not have good enough access and was far too big for the site. In other words it flouted a whole series of planning rules and that is what the Labour Council recognised unanimously. All Mosques should follow planning rules. We believe in freedom but would remove the charitable status of Islam. Under us there would be no Government subsidy for Islam as there is now but we would not persecute Muslims like they persecute Christians in Muslim countries

11. Have CPA protested against the building/opening of strip clubs, casnos ,bookies, gay bars or the conversion of church buildings into pubs like the one at Muswell Hill?

Absolutely where ever they are brought to our attention.

12. What is CPA’s stance on foreign policy with regards to the current plight in the Middle East (including the situation in Israel-Palestine)? Does CPA support military intervention or is it a pacifist party as many Christians preach Christianity is pacifist?

We believe all focus should be on defence and never to attack ie . on Trident we want a missile shield and to develop the technology to divert missiles into the middle of the ocean so nuclear weapons become obsolete. In Syria and Iraq we ant the focus on safe havens to protect the people. Our main aim with IS would be to destroy them verbally by showing their paradise of virgins rivers of wine and loads if food doesnl ;t ecxist so all theursuicicde bombers are going to hell. Once this is clealry shown they will stop killing themselves and IS will collapse.

[NOTE: The vast majority of Muslims including myself oppose ISIS (Daesh) but Sid Cordle's claims of wanting to show Muslims the Muslim view of paradise is wrong would interest Muslim apologist - I suggest he gets in touch with Muslims who are apologetically aware and have chat with Muslims. I believe Muslim arguments for Islam outweigh Christian arguments for Christianity. I trust Sid Cordle and his Christian People's Alliance colleagues will see such after discussion with informed Muslims]

13. Lastly, you’re clearly a political party and want to influence governance of a country, how do you reconcile this with the notion many Christians preach of separation of Church and State?

That is a misunderstanding of what Jesus taught. We believe God is interested in every aspect of society, music, arts, sport, business, politics. There is nothing He doesn’t care about. The key for us is listening to God. If you can listen to God and get God's wisdom then the whole world should see the CPA has the best policies for the nation and for the world.

Response to Lizzie Schofield on British Muslim "Integration"

British Christian Islamophobes and Polish Women

Britain First's Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding Learn About Anti-Semitism and Christianity

Murder Rates in Muslim Countries Compared to Non Muslim Countries.

The Hitler Propaganda on Muslims

Holocaust Denial & Bridging the Jewish-Muslim Divide ~ US Imam Dr. Yasir Qadhi

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

British Muslims in Preston Helping to Save Lives

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

Monday, 6 March 2017

Jonanthan McLatchie Should Convert to Islam

Jonathan McLatchie should pronounce Shahada. Jonathan was asking for proof that calling Jesus Yahweh is heresy according the Trinitarian orthodox church. Jonathan has said he will convert to Islam if proof of this can be found.

What I can do is tell you Trinitarian Christians, according to their theology, technically cannot say Jesus is Yahweh

Jesus cannot technically be called Yahweh in a Trinitarian church tradition as Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity who took on human flesh (Jesus = Son + Human Flesh). That's not Yahweh in their tradition. Thus according to his church tradition, he cannot call Jesus Yahweh. It would be considered incorrect theological terminology - thus heretical.

Jonathan said "God [Yahweh] worked through Jesus". According to Trinitarian theology, it's correct for Trinitarians to distinguish between Jesus and Yahweh as Jesus is not Yahweh because Jesus is considered to be the Son + Human Flesh. Before the birth of Jesus 2000 years ago, Jesus did not exist according to their theology but Yahweh did exist as three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yahweh is not Jesus according to their theology.

Video ft. Jonathan  McLatchie, Paul Williams and Bart Erhman
This video is also uploaded here and here

A response from Mark Bennett

Yahya said: "my point is Jesus = son + human nature". I think there might be a slight misunderstanding here. Jesus is not the name of a 'person + human nature' but the name given to a person when he began to inhabit that nature or when he obtained and took upon human form. Jesus was the name given to the person/self possessing a human nature.

For example upon death when our bodies become corpses and begin to rot and decay, when we simply exist as as pure spirit, we will not cease to have our personal identity (including our names), rather even without our physical body we will still be identified as we were on earth, simply as us (e.g. Yahya and Mark). Jesus is the name given (upon birth) to a PERSON (the Son) having a human nature, not to a nature itself. As technically speaking we are not materialists, when we look at a corpse, we don't believe the corpse of a beloved one (e.g. lets call him say: "Jacob") that body (corpse) is Jacob, rather we the believe that is the body of (belonging/belonged to) Jacob, but Jacob is now absent from the body. Hence the divine person (the Son of the Father) who upon birth is given the name Jesus is eternal. Jesus is eternal, his physical body is not.

The human nature belonging to Jesus is created. Finally I'm not sure if Yahya understood Jonathan's challenge. As you said: "Jonathan was asking for proof that calling Jesus Yahweh is heresy ACCORDING (to ~ MB) THE TRINITARIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH". ("Orthodox Trinitarian Churches"). However Yahya what you provide is not proof that the statement and/or belief "Jesus is Yahweh" is heresy according to *any* Orthodox Trinitarian Church, rather you provide an ARGUMENT: "What I can do is tell you Trinitarian Christians, according to THEIR THEOLOGY, TECHNICALLY CANNOT SAY Jesus is Yahweh" and: "Jesus CANNOT TECHNICALLY be called Yahweh in a Trinitarian church tradition". After making (what you think) are logical inferences you then conclude: "That's not Yahweh in their tradition. Thus according to his church tradition, he cannot call Jesus Yahweh. It would be considered incorrect theological terminology - thus heretical."

But where has this tradition drawn the same conclusion as you have? This is your unique and personal deduction given the propositions in Christian theology. But in articles of the faith and the denunciation of heresies, such beliefs have not only never been made explicit throughout church history, but the opposite has been repeatedly and positively affirmed (from the beginning to later), even in the earliest creeds or orthodox beliefs e.g. Phil 2:6-11. Hence your personal 'inference' is not presented or established by the Church itself and contradicted by the Church itself. This is the challenge McLatchie is making in the first place, that you can't produce such a statement from that Orthodox tradition, anymore than I can present a creedal statement from the Sunni tradition testifying "Mohammed is not a prophet", despite me believing that certain contradictory notions in the Sunni tradition could lead one to infer such a conclusion.

My response to Mark

Thanks for your time Mark. It’s only right I dedicate some time to your comment.

Oh yeah, I completely agree Jon’s challenge was that of an orthodox church council stating the belief “Jesus is Yahweh” to be heretical. That’s quite vague as we can’t establish what is meant by “orthodox church”.

For instance, are we talking about post the first council at Nicaea? Or Constantinople in 381? Or the 8th century church after the 7 Ecumenical councils? But what of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and their respective churches? I don’t believe the Ante-Nicenes believed in the Trinity idea so for people like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp and Ignatius the belief of Jesus being the 2nd Person of a Trinity doctrine would have been deemed to be *heretical*. So that is one route I could have gone down in response to Jon.

I could also have gone down the route of using the councils that ruled in favour of Arius and/or what was later to be pejoratively called “Arianism” during the period between 1st Nicaea and Constantinople. Another possible route one could go down.

The third route would be to focus on those in the New Testament and/or those who wrote parts of the Scripture we now know as the NT. The statement “Jesus is Yahweh” would be heretical in their eyes. For instance Peter saying Jesus was a man attested by God. Or the belief Jesus was not pre-existent in Matthew and Luke. There’s plenty more – a discussion for a later perhaps.

In hindsight I should have used an accumulative argument in the video and post – I hope to add this and your comment to the blog post (God willing).

But hey alas, I’m defending my deductive argument. So let’s just focus on this. You made some interesting points. Mark, you wrote: “For example upon death when our bodies become corpses and begin to rot and decay, when we simply exist as as pure spirit, we will not cease to have our personal identity (including our names), rather even without our physical body we will still be identified as we were on earth, simply as us (e.g. Yahya and Mark). Jesus is the name given (upon birth) to a PERSON (the Son) having a human nature, not to a nature itself. As technically speaking we are not materialists, when we look at a corpse, we don't believe the corpse of a beloved one (e.g. lets call him say: "Jacob") that body (corpse) is Jacob, rather we the believe that is the body of (belonging/belonged to) Jacob, but Jacob is now absent from the body Hence the divine person (the Son of the Father) who upon birth is given the name Jesus is eternal. Jesus is eternal, his physical body is not.”

Two thoughts after reading your comment above:

1. Thinking about this it seems like you’re veering to something like Apollinarianism. The “orthodox” belief is that Jesus had a human spirit/mind. Whilst Apollinarianism denies that by arguing Jesus didn’t have a human mind/spirit but this was replaced by the divine. Let’s focus on the idea of an “orthodox” understanding here, you can’t argue (from that theology) that the Son was the person of Jesus as our soul/mind/spirit is the person of us – Jesus has a human soul/mind/spirit according to “orthodox” theology.

2. You seem to have drawn a dichotomy between Jesus and the Son. Is this dichotomy *only* due to naming or is there some other reason for this distinction? My question here is, in your view what is the difference between the Son and Jesus? There’s a change in name due to the idea of pre-incarnation and post incarnation but there is another change in the Trinitarian mindset due to the belief there was an addition of a human body - an earthly and resurrection body. The follow up question here is what does the Trinitarian think about this belief that “God” changed whilst also believing God transcends time? [Mark, that’s just a side question – you don’t have to deal with that question in this discussion for now if you feel it will take us away from the topic]

Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?

Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?

Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?

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

Saturday, 4 March 2017

1 John 2:22 Manuscript Discussion

Recently, there was a bit of online fuss over a 1 John 2:22 manuscript. The argument made was casting doubt on whether the highlighted portion (bold)  of 1 John 2:22 was part of the original text.

Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. [1 John 2:22]

It is true for this particular manuscript the saying "Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son" is "missing". It ends at: ουκ εστιν ισ

The manuscript exists although, I understand, Mustafa Ahmed's article initially got the nomenclature mixed up hence the difficulty and confusion in finding the relevant manuscript. No need for anybody to call Mustafa a liar here. It exists, his article wasn't making all this up. Those who did resort to such finger pointing need to apologise for false witness.

OK, but is it an argument with efficacy? I am not convinced. There's a lot of confusion around this manuscript.

1. The first bout of confusion arises, from the reader's view point, due to the automatic assumption that it is written on papyrus, paper or parchment (as most NT manuscripts are). It's actually written on clay. It's a piece of pottery (material ostracron):

Having seen it one automatically knows that it's no big deal that it does not carry the sentence "Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son". It's a small fragment of pottery, there's no reason why it should contain the whole verse. This can only be concluded once the fragment is seen rather than relying on a database of the text on each manuscript. It's a good learning experience for everybody.

2. Secondly, Codex Sinaiticus is older than this piece and Codex Sinaiticus contains the whole of 1 John 2:22.

The article states:

"between ~300 CE and 600 CE, this folio (page) falls into the earlier period of ~300 CE. This is the earliest manuscript of 1 John we have" Mustafa Apologist

The earliest date is used from a given range but it's dated to be mid to late 5th century here  and University College London range it from 395CE and beyond. 

It's later than Codex Sinaiticus.

I don't believe the argument in Mustafa Ahmed's article is a convincing argument due to it being built on premises that have not been fully or clearly established. It's an adventurous effort to inject a new argument into the bloodstream of polemics but right now caution is the watchword. Perhaps that argument can be revised in some way albeit I personally don't see a legitimate route for this argument to be carried further.

Hey, why was a new route even necessary? Are these words from Jesus? Isn't 1 John anonymous? Does 1 John carry any authority?

The author doesn't appear to be a Trinitarian!

If there was an oral tradition floating around, which the author of 1 John based this statement of whoever denies the Son has denied the Father on we don’t know the context of the statement. Christians readily admit they don't know the context of purported quotes of Jesus: "..the well-known fact that we often do not have the original context in which Jesus’ sayings were spoken, much less their precise wording" [William Lane Craig]

In addition, if there’s some Prophetic grounding to the statement, it's not an un-Islamic statement as it would appear to be a teaching of whoever denies the Prophet of God has denied God. Isn't that what people who reject the messengers of God essentially wind up doing?

Wednesday, 1 March 2017

Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?

Muslims need to be aware of how the “Christian Persecution Complex” (CPC) can get in the way of fruitful dialogue with Christians.

A tale of two American Christians

In this video the American Christian missionary from the Pfander Centre for Apologetics, Jay Smith, has lapped up the persecution narrative and self-radicalised himself about Muslims so much so that he proclaims he “expects” to be killed by Muslims one day.

When one has that type of mindset they will never be able to have a meaningful dialogue with a Muslim. The dialogue will always be a pretext for the Christian suffering from CPC to use the interaction with the Muslim to bolster their CPC. This may come in the form of subtle condescension or offensive polemics to provoke a reaction or an emotion from the Muslim.

For this Christian, Muslims feeling resentment or hatred towards and verbally abusing him is seen as “persecution”.

If the video does not play, this video is uploaded here and here

On Bible verses teaching the followers of Jesus will be hated (such as Matthew 10:22 and 24:9), pastor Bob Beeman says “It seems to give Christians the opportunity to act stupid and justify it”
“...Many times when we do stupid things, do stupid things, when we antagonise people around us and when we act in any other way but lovingly to those around us and they respond like human beings do and get upset with us, we say, well, the Bible says I will be persecuted and you know it’s just [that] I’m I’ being persecuted for the Lord. No folks, many times you’re being persecuted because you’re acting stupid”

On the other hand this American Christian was able to conduct a meaningful and polite dialogue with a Muslim which viewers commended him for.

Comments of commendation:

I appreciate that he is listening and not interrupting unlike some crazy Christians at the same time,
putting forward his Christian view point across without any hostility...

I enjoyed this discussion a lot. The American man seems like a nice genuine sincere person who actually listens and can tell he will reflect and research his own scripture and beliefs. I hope he sees the truth and light that is Islam. God bless

Good Christian man.

first time i seen a christian listen

Putting all this down to CPC or the lack of it is simplistic but I'd hazard the guess that CPC really doesn't help Christian-Muslim dialogue. Well, actually it does help break the dialogue down and increasing division. Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is right, Christians in the West are not being "persecuted". I'd advise folks like Jay Smith and Beth Grove to think about this.

Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?

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

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Paula Fredriksen: Paul was NOT a Trinitarian

Thoughts on Lizzie Schofield's blog on Pakistan's ban of Valentines Day

Blog: Aggressive Sid Cordle and Lizzie Schofield on Mary Worship and The Quran

Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical