Polem­i­cal Rebuttals

After the last war in Koso­vo, the over­all eco­nom­ic sit­u­a­tion of the coun­try has dete­ri­o­rat­ed in a dras­tic way. As is well-known, the end of war meant that Koso­vo became a tar­get for many Chris­t­ian orga­ni­za­tions, a phe­nom­e­non which seems to accom­pa­ny every war-emerg­ing coun­try nowa­days. The same hap­pened to post-com­mu­nist Alba­nia, as well as Bosnia, Rwan­da and sev­er­al oth­er coun­tries in the world involved in dif­fer­ent con­flicts. Need­less to men­tion, great pover­ty is a gate to dis­be­lief, as man is con­tin­u­ous­ly in search for the pro­vi­sion grant­ed to him by the Almighty and frus­tra­tion seems to cause all kinds of incon­gru­ent deci­sions. In order to elu­ci­date the bit­ter real­i­ty in Koso­vo, we are pre­sent­ing the case of the con­ver­sion of an entire Mus­lim fam­i­ly to Christianity.

Among the most laugh­able argu­ments of Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies and athe­ists is their argu­ment to show that Islam does not pro­hib­it homo­sex­u­al­i­ty and that it is per­mis­si­ble in Islam. This is indeed an ide­al exam­ple of how igno­rance and incom­pe­tence can make a per­son become a joke before his oppo­nents. In order to dis­pel the Islam­ic illit­er­a­cy of these types of peo­ple, we are pro­vid­ing an edu­ca­tion­al guide to those who ignore that homo­sex­u­al­i­ty is utter­ly pro­hib­it­ed and giv­en the cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in Islam.

Schol­ar­ly decen­cy demands that the authors of the 1977 book Hagarism : The Mak­ing of the Islam­ic World offi­cial­ly repu­di­ate a scan­dalous the­sis, one in which they no longer believe and one that maligns the faith of more than a bil­lion people.

In sum­ma­ry, the videos will show that the claims made by the mis­sion­ary Jay Smith are at best dubi­ous, decep­tive and have been dealt with exten­sive­ly by Mus­lim schol­ars of the past. The prob­lem is that Mr. Smith is aware of these facts, but choos­es to ignore them. When it comes to the Qur’an he will trans­form into a lib­er­al but when it comes to the Bible he will trans­form into a right-wing, con­ser­v­a­tive inerranist. This shows his own incon­sis­ten­cy in deal­ing with the issues present. If he was seri­ous in the things he has to say about the Qur’an, then we won­der how he can still believe in the Bible as in inerrant document.

A response to the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary and polemi­cist, Jay Smith’s video, ​“Is The Qu’ran Cor­rupt­ed ? Bib­li­cal Char­ac­ters in the Qu’ran” by Iqra Pro­duc­tions. This video will show that the sources that the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary Jay Smith uses are dubi­ous, decep­tive and have been dealt with exten­sive­ly by Mus­lim schol­ars of the past. It also expos­es the weak­ness­es of the Bible nar­ra­tives and chal­lenges the mis­sion­ary to explain the sim­i­lar­i­ties of the Bible nar­ra­tives with ear­li­er sources and texts.

Some Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ar­ies have the inher­ent fan­ta­sy that Sura’ al-Fati­hah (the first Sura’ of the Qur’an) some­how sup­ports their false pagan doc­trine of the Trin­i­ty. They will first cite the whole ayaat and then twist this inter­pre­ta­tion to suit their false doc­trine. Let us now deal with this lat­est polemic in the fol­low­ing paragraphs.

It has always been the mis­sion­ary tra­di­tion to jump from one nefar­i­ous claim to anoth­er in try­ing to ascer­tain the nature of ​“Allah”. We have pre­vi­ous­ly shown some of the more com­mon the­o­ries that they prop­a­gate, rang­ing from Allah (T) being the ​“moon god” to Ar-Rah­man being a term for ​“promeganate”. A recent mis­sion­ary alle­ga­tion has also been hurled against a beatif­ic salu­ta­tion of the Prophet Muham­mad sal­lal­lah ​‘alay­hi wa sal­lam. Now a new pos­tu­la­tion of the mis­sion­ary has been made in their arti­cle, name­ly that ​“Allah” is syn­ony­mous with the god Hubal of the pagan Makkans !

We present as fol­lows a quote from Tony Blair, Prime Min­is­ter of Unit­ed King­dom, which was pub­lished quite recent­ly in For­eign Affairs, January/​February 2007.

They cer­tain­ly have no inkling about the devel­op­ment of a lan­guage, whether it is Ara­bic or oth­er­wise ; gram­mar was not the machine that pro­duced the Ara­bic lan­guage, rather it is sim­ply a log­i­cal expla­na­tion to ways of Ara­bic speech. Due to their inher­ent stu­pid­i­ty, the Chris­tians do not rec­og­nize the cor­rect his­toric­i­ty of its chrono­log­i­cal order : Arabs speak the lan­guage first, then explana­to­ry rules are for­mu­lat­ed lat­er (after the advent of Islam). Con­se­quent­ly, gram­mar should agree with Ara­bic speech, not vice versa.

This arti­cle was writ­ten to pro­vide a schol­ar­ly analy­sis on the ide­ol­o­gy of Zion­ism, its ori­gins and pur­pose, as well as its past ​“achieve­ments” in hav­ing suc­cess­ful­ly dis­plac­ing thou­sands of Pales­tini­ans who sud­den­ly lost their home­land to this group of ter­ror­ists. We seek to con­front and expose the true nature of the ide­ol­o­gy of Zion­ism, often tout­ed as ​“Jew­ish nation­al­ism”. Can Zion­ism be equat­ed with the Jews and Judaism ? Is Zion­ism whol­ly ground­ed on reli­gious grounds as the Zion­ist them­selves try to claim, or just anoth­er name for the sec­u­lar and/​or racist ide­olo­gies that we have seen in the last cen­tu­ry in the likes of Nazism, Fas­cism and Apartheid ? These are the fruits of our research on the Israeli-Pales­tin­ian con­flict, and we leave it to the read­er to form their own con­clu­sions and decide whether Zion­ism should be right­ful­ly con­front­ed and opposed, or otherwise.

Unfor­tu­nate­ly for such peo­ple, this fal­la­cy of equiv­o­ca­tion has no basis in Islam­ic juris­dic­tions and the pun­ish­ment for rape (which is defined as forced sex­u­al inter­course) is cer­tain­ly not equiv­a­lent to the pun­ish­ment of adul­tery. Insha’al­lah, in what fol­lows we aim to deal with this issue once and for all by break­ing it down into sev­er­al points so as to enable easy understanding.

We recent­ly came face-to-face with the lies of a low-lev­el Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary on the voice chan­nel Paltalk with regard to the so-called ​“abro­gra­tion” of Qur’an, 2:256 (“There is no com­pul­sion in reli­gion…”). The same Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary also accused this author of com­mit­ting taqiyyah and resort­ed to the tafsir (com­men­tary) by Ibn Kathir from the same vol­ume (the abridged trans­la­tion) to lend ​“sup­port” to his fur­ther mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of the Qur’an­ic text.

I am grow­ing increas­ing­ly frus­trat­ed at the mealy-mouthed, apolo­getic bunch of Mus­lims parad­ed across our TV screens these days. And just when one lot sud­den­ly wake up, smell the cof­fee and begin to dis­agree with US and British for­eign poli­cies, anoth­er bunch take their place.

Recent­ly the world’s most mal­adroit mis­sion­ar­ies have allowed an impromp­tu piece to be pub­lished in response to Shab­bir Ally’s views on Surah al-Anbiyaa : 30. Per­son­al­ly I do believe that Shab­bir’s inter­pre­ta­tion is wrong, albeit he was not the first Mus­lim to prof­fer such a cos­mo­log­i­cal hypoth­e­sis on this par­tic­u­lar Holy Ayaah. How­ev­er I feel that a two-fold response is requisite.

The Con­fer­ence unfolds to the bal­anced mind. Its soul is the hon­or of the search, the equa­nim­i­ty of judg­ment and the breath of beauty.…