Virtual Living vs Real Living (Derek Adams Retirement Speech)

I am retiring for a while, I will be back, but sometimes in order to improve, you must out the old, and increase the new.

The Tolerance Of MDI

In a recent PRESS RELEASE, MDI (Muslim Debate Initiative) stated:

While it may be politically incorrect for Liberals to condone the preaching of discrimination against minorities, it is equally politically incorrect for Liberals to defend religions with law systems that pre-date Liberalism. Because of this, Hate mongers are regularly appearing in the media making uncontested fallacious statements about Islam and Islamic law. You’ll seldom hear a Liberal defence of either. When Nick Griffin (BNP) stated on BBC’s Question Time, that Islam is ‘wicked and vicious’ – no one challenged him on that, despite the fact that his fellow panellists challenged him incessantly on every other of his views.

Instead of providing a refutation to the fallacious attacks against Islam, mainstream politicians and Liberal thinkers will generally respond that they have faith that like the Catholics and Jews who immigrated to the UK before them, the majority of Muslims will also eventually cease being ‘strict’ followers of their faith, and will adopt Western values. This argument is dubious and dangerous, for it implies that the anti-Muslim groups actually have a legitimate intolerance, but that their only fault is rather their impatience, or lack of faith in the expected ’inevitability’ of Muslim assimilation and adoption mind, body and soul, of Western values. The assimulation and forced adoption of arbitrary values, is not an appealing prospect for many Muslims. Muslims justifiably do not see it as fair and just that they should have to change their beliefs in order to be tolerated. A society need only demand obedience to the law from its citizens. A society which demands more than the rule of law upon its minorities, upto the point where they are required to change their beliefs, or face threat of discrimination, and potentially, even outright persecution, is not a fair or just society. (source)

Al Andalusi (presumably the primary author of this press release) is making a valid legal point, no minority must assimilate and adopt Western Values, that it is indeed perfectly legally compatible and lawful to live a lifestyle within the West without embracing Western values. Mr Al Andalusi  has made one critical error, he candidly admits Islam is one of these religions that indeed has a Law system and while no minority must assimilate and adhere to Western values, Andalusi himself admits a society (including the West) must demand obedience to the Law, this essentially means Muslims are also bound by their Religious Law. Andalusi fails to mention that the Islamic sources refer to the Muslims as an "Ummah(community,society nation)", and therefore every Muslim and the Muslim society as a whole are also actually obligated to adhere to the Law of that society (in this case: Sharia Law). But how do Muslims manage to do that in the West?

Andalusi knows that adhering to the fully developed Islamic system in the West means Muslims must somehow manage and cope without being fully capable of surrendering and adhering to the Law of God as a Muslim which is why he objects to adopting Western Culture and insists on defending an ancient religious tale and it's binding code. Of course, this results in an internal Jihad for many Muslims, as they outwardly cannot adhere to every law they would like to see implemented.

How do Muslims where Andalusi lives (in England) handle this? They voluntarily submit to their own laws, their "Sharia Councils", effectively they have an Islamic sublaw operating and everything that is incompatible with their own nation's legally binding law must be voluntarily adhered to.

I would like to thank MDI for coming out of the closet and confessing it is Islamic Law they wish to see defended, that assimilation is out of the question for true adherents of Islamic values and practices. Adherence to Allah's eternal law is what Muslims truly desire, not the compatibility of the West and Islam, but the domination of Islamic Laws and the religious right of Muslims to fully practice Islam in the west.

MDI while ranting about incompetent Liberal folly also wish to express the desire to openly debate and challenge Islamic opponents in the spirit of fairness, tolerance and debate, and provide a great Mohammadan example for us all that I thought I would share with you:

"MDI takes guidance from the example provided by the noble Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him): this certainly does not involve covering the eyes, ears, and mouth when confronted by opposing views or opinions. The noble Prophet (pbuh) did not turn his back on the ignorant without dialogue or debate. One famous case was Muhammed’s debate with the Christian delegation of Najran."

I have left the web link to the article intact so everyone can go and read the great example of Mohammed's tolerance that MDI wish to obey and emulate. Here are a few quotations for yourself:

After returning from the expedition of Tabuk, the Prophet sent his closest companion, Abu Bakr, to lead the pilgrimage and his cousin, ‘Ali, to claim total and religious authority over Makkah so that no unbeliever was able to offer pilgrimage according to the old practices of ignorance.

The time had come for all Arabian tribes to realize that there was no longer any power in Arabia to challenge the authority of the Islamic state in Madinah with them now followers of the Prophet. Hence, it was only to be expected that the Arabian tribes should start to review their position.

Then we have more example of the Islamic peace and tolerance promoted by MDI:

"Later On ...

The story of the Najran people is not complete unless a later episode is mentioned; when the Prophet sent his military commander, Khalid ibn al-Walid, to the tribe of Al-Harith ibn Ka’b, in Najran. The Prophet ordered Khalid to call on those people to accept Islam and to give them a period of three days to make up their minds. If they accepted Islam, Khalid was to accept that from them. If they refused, he would fight them. When Khalid arrived there, he sent his emissaries all over the place, calling on the people to accept Islam. They did so without much hesitation."

I appreciate MDI's honesty about their willingness to adhere and fight the Christian disbelievers who do not submit to the Islamic State for the Prophet Mohammed and their agreement to ban the religious freedom of pagans.

So what have we discovered today with the help of MDI?

• Muslims truly in their hearts desire want to adhere to Allah's eternal law stipulated by the Islamic Sources and Scholars
• Muslims justifiably (through Islam) do not wish to assimilate into Western culture but to remain segregated and distant except when debating for purpose of introducing Islam and the Sharia
• Muslims wish to ban or limit religious freedom and fight for the prophet Mohammed when commanded.
• Muslims are their own society and must adhere to Islamic Law to the extent of which they possibly can.
• Like (many liberals), Muslims think freedom of speech should be limited presumably based on the teachings of the Qur'an and example of the prophet Mohammed prohibiting slander (of himself and others) under penalty of death in the Islamic nation.
• Western Values and Islamic Values are ultimately incompatible

In conclusion it is in fact MDI who help promote Islamophobia by advocating the prophet Mohammed as a perfect example of human conduct for all time for all people but especially for Muslims, what a disturbing thought.

Should Muslims Use Jeremiah 8:8 To Demonstrate The Old Testament or Torah Is Corrupt?

Jose made a really interesting post about Muslim appeal to the Gospels and Disciples below and showed how it backfires to assume the Disciples wrote the Gospels and documented their own misunderstandings. I thought a similar argument could be used about Muslims appealing to Old Testament sources.

The same argument can be applied to Muslim usage of Jeremiah 8:8. If the Old Testament is corrupt, then Jeremiah 8:8 must also be corrupt and Jeremiahs teachings and book must have been distorted, unless of course Muslims cherry pick supposed "authentic verses", yet if Jeremiah 8:8 is right about this corruption what independent evidence is there that this verse is authentic and to be trusted? We cannot assume the Old Testament is corrupt and this one verse is authentic since that would be special pleading.

And what evidence is their in Muslim tradition to suggest that Jeremiah was a true prophet, whose teachings do not fully reflect the original teachings of Jeremiah yet some remain intact? They must be agnostic about Jeremiah as a valid prophet and source thus his comments cannot be taken as a valid authority. The only sense in which Muslims could appeal to this reference would be as a historical reference then or as an appeal to Christian scriptures.

If they argue the (8:8) verse doesn't need evidence to be authentic since they are just quoting from the Christian Bible to appeal to your own scriptures in order to show you something, then Christians are not obligated to accept Muslim interpretation of Jeremiah 8:8 since the Christian presupposition is ALL of Jeremiah's and Daniel's teachings are fully intact and authentic reflections on what Jeremiah and Daniel actually believed.


If they argue Jeremiah 8:8  is a valid historical reference, then they must show how conservative/liberal Old Testament Critical Scholarship views this is as a valid historical reference. But they must show it is interpreted as a reference to say there is some truth but some falsehood in the Torah of Moses otherwise all we have is a corrupted Torah. 

So what we are essentially left with is the only way for the Muslim argument to work is if they appeal to the authority of the Qur'an as the criterion to determine truth/falsehood in the Old Testament and Jeremiah 8:8 matches completely with what the Qur'an says. Yet to do this they must:

• A) Establish Qur'an is FULLY divine and valid judging criterion sent by God
• B) Establish the Qur'an and other Islamic sources teach Jeremiah was a true prophet that can be relied upon whose teachings were partially distorted, yet some valid elements remain
• C) Prove the Qur'an accuses Old Testament of having some corruption and some truth and the Quran determines the truth hood therein.

There are obvious various problems with this. Skipping (A) for now there is no explicit verse in the Quran that says some parts of previous scripture (or the Old Testament) is corrupt and other parts that agree with the Qur'an are valid.

In fact the only explicitly reference to corruption in the Qur'an is Chapter 2:79 which doesn't suggest some parts of the Book are valid and some parts are true, rather 2:79 suggests wholesale corruption by ungodly manipulators and perverters of Gods word selling revelation, thus leaving the Book completely untrustworthy. However this contradictions various other places in the Qur'an like 5:41-43;7:157 which suggest the Torah is the valid and binding word of God for the Jews to trust in and judge by.

An additional problem is that the Qur'an never explicitly identifies "the book(al kitab) or the tawrat" as the Old Testament scriptures. In fact the Quran refers to Al Tawrat (the Torah/Law) as a revelation GIVEN to Moses. Which means the Quran doesn't even REFERENCE the Old Testament least we accuse the Qur'an of making a historical error and saying the entire Old Testament was given to Moses.

Thus what we are left with is the Qur'an never mentions the Old Testament or the Book of Jeremiah, nor does it mention Jeremiah as a prophet. Therefore in conclusion there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that can be taken to mean the Qur'an is the criterion of what is true and false in the book of Jeremiah or the Old Testament in general, thus Muslims must only appeal to Jeremiah as a historical source. Yet according to Muslims much of history is not reliable (e.g. the crucifixion of Jesus), thus how do we know if Jeremiah 8:8 is a reliable historical source? Muslims must also be agnostic about that!

Hopefully this compliments and supplements Jose's post.

Sami Zaatari vs James White: Was Jesus Crucified ?

Sami says the disciples could of misunderstood the crucifixion since they have misunderstood Jesus through the gospels and therefore their testimony isn't trust worthy, it has no bases.

Whats interesting, since Sami said for argument sake that he would grant that the disciples wrote the Gospels, is that the VERY DISCIPLES THEMSELVES are narrating how THEY HAVE AT TIMES MISUNDERSTOOD JESUS. (Side note sure sounds like that passes criterion of embarrassment.)

Its one thing for a person or a group to make the claim that disciples are untrustworthy, and Sami assumes that the people making the claim are trust worthy regarding their assessment of the disciples.

But on the other hand if disciples misunderstood Jesus and therefore because of that they are untrustworthy, why in the world would Sami believe the disciples testimony that they misunderstood Jesus if they are untrustworthy?

I guess the disciples were trustworthy enough to correctly narrate every time they misunderstood Jesus. But ironically they fail to narrate that they misunderstood the crucifixion.

And doesn't admission of a mistake or a misunderstanding presuppose that the person or people have to come to knowledge to what exactly the truth is in order to know that they are mistaken?

Here is the point that would mean anytime that the disciples narrated that they were mistaken about anything about Jesus that would mean they have come to knowledge of the actual truth by the Triune GOD.

Which means Jesus didn't leave the disciples in the dark about ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS about him, because it would be counter productive to their ministry because they would be spreading false information about Jesus.

And Jesus even promises them the Spirt of Truth which would guide them into and all Truth and enable them to remember everything he said.

But yet Sami wants us to believe when the disciples seen Jesus, he didn't correct their assumption that he was Crucified and Rose from dead.

Taliban suicide attack kills 20

AFP © Enlarge photo

KHOST, Afghanistan (AFP) - A suicide bomber tore through an Afghan-NATO foot patrol in a crowded city on Monday, killing at least 20 people, including three foreign troops and their interpreter, officials said.
Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility for the attack near a market in the eastern city of Khost. Six Afghan police and 10 civilians were also killed, and 62 were wounded, provincial governor's spokesman Baryalai Rawan, told AFP.

Authorities had earlier given a death toll of four Afghan police and six civilians.

"Today at around 8:30 am (0400 GMT) a suicide bomber on a motorcycle targeted a joint patrol in Khost city in a crowded area," the governor's office said.

NATO's US-led International Security Assistance Force confirmed that three NATO service members and an ISAF-contracted interpreter had been killed in the attack.

The Taliban Islamists said on their website that the suicide attack was carried out by "a hero mujahid, Shohaib, from Kunduz", claiming that eight foreigners and six Afghan soldiers were killed.

The deaths take coalition casualties to at least 347 this year, according to an AFP tally. NATO has more than 100,000 troops fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, but they are due to pull out by the end of 2014.

Joint NATO-Afghan operations had been temporarily restricted last month after a spike in insider attacks, in which Afghan security forces turned their weapons against their coalition allies.
Last week, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said most joint operations have resumed, but could not give any precise details on numbers.

NATO says that overall insurgent attacks on its forces dropped by five percent in the first eight months of this year compared to 2011, but are still running at about 100 a day.

It said the decline in attacks showed that its troops had been able to "reverse the momentum" of the insurgents' campaign, an interpretation that the Taliban "strongly and categorically" denied.

In a spectacular attack last month the Taliban stormed a heavily fortified base in southern Afghanistan, destroying aircraft worth tens of millions of dollars and killing two US Marines.

And according to the United Nations, August was the second deadliest month in five years for civilians, with a total of 374 -- more than 10 a day -- killed and 581 injured.

The latest blast came a day after NATO announced that a firefight between coalition troops and their Afghan allies killed an ISAF soldier, a civilian contractor and three Afghan army troops.

At least 51 coalition troops have been killed in insider assaults this year -- about 15 percent of all NATO deaths -- and the top ISAF general has described them as "the signature attack" of the Afghan war.
The scale of the insider assaults is unprecedented in modern warfare, and has seriously undermined trust between NATO coalition forces and their Afghan allies in the joint effort against Taliban insurgents.

"I'm mad as hell about them, to be honest with you," ISAF commander General John Allen told CBS's "60 Minutes" programme on Sunday.

"We're willing to sacrifice a lot for this campaign, but we're not willing to be murdered for it," the commander said. (source)