Another fake ex-Muslim outs himself. The girls are demonstrating the correct mode of Islam's ritual daily prayer, as is plainly obvious by their standing in a row with their right hands folded over their left upon their chest, in addition to the instruction to focus one's gaze upon one's place of prostration. The exact same prayer postures and protocols apply equally to boys and girls. But of course, you'd have to have really been a Muslim to know this.

No Muslim has ever or would ever call for such a pointless ban. Not only do we not care for what others eat, but during prayer in particular, we're too focused on our godly duty to particularly give a damn. So please go head: gorge yourself to death on bacon, pork belly and ham.

You folks at Sapience seriously want us to take from this guy?

What you deride as "criticiz[ing] people" is nothing but the sharing of reminders to the believers, encouraging each other towards steadfastness upon the truth, warning and admonishing against falling into falsehood, and correcting and refuting what may be exhibited of misguidance. All such criticism is not just an aspect of Islam. It is Islam in so far as the Prophet ﷺ said: الدِّينُ النَّصِيحَةُ "The religion [of Islam] is sincere counsel." As regards the duty of hisba specifically — calling others to accountability through enjoining the good and forbidding evil publicly — then this is from the greatest expressions of jihād. And the Prophet ﷺ said: وَمَنْ جَاهَدَهُمْ بِلِسَانِهِ فَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ So even were it true that criticizing people is all that I do, then you've no right to object to something legislated in the revelation and so highly lauded in our religion. Rather, I can hope for reward from my Lord, as could you, the beneficiary, had you received the nasiha with humility — to say nothing of welcoming one's critic with gratitude and felicity. As Umar said: رحم الله امرأ أهدى إليّ عيوبي "May Allah have mercy on the one who gifted me my faults." My behaviour towards you would only be objectionable if the criticism was (a) unwarranted and/or (b) in opposition to the Book and the Sunna. As for (b), every counsel I've given thee, whether explicitly or implicitly, evoked the guidance bequeathed to us by Allah and His Nabi, الصلاة والسلام عليه While as for (a)—your deservedness of criticism and rebuke—this is something you've yourself admitted to… to a point. So your insulting me above, when at least superficially my words were sincere and done out of love, speaks to your reprehensible character and rebellious conduct. Your protest that you and others are only "trying their best" does not absolve you for falling short. Not when your best is manifestly in opposition to the Sunna and the principles ahl as-sunna taught. Each time I've advised you, its been with good manners, directing you towards matters of Islam that you are patently ignorant of, such as the impact of territoriality on blasphemy, or matters you are aware of, but too arrogant to take care of. Because when it comes to harming the reputation of Islam online, after your friend Mohammed Hijab, you're second in line. As for your demanding to know what I'm doing, then a question returns to you. What do think is required of me or any Muslim beyond the (farā'id) obligations that upon every individual have been specified, or the collective obligation (fard kifāya) of dawa wherein one believes oneself qualified? But since you ask, had you bothered to look, you'd have learnt of the overseas masājid and marākiz I've founded and funded, the dawa literature I've authored and published, the communities I have supported, even after getting banned and deported. In the online English space alone, I defy to bring anything to rival what I've brought on the intersectionality of adiqa, history, and intellectual Salafi thought. Direct us, if you can, to a better defence of the Sahaba during the fitna that befell them than my Civil War playlist. Show us a better articulation for the foresight and political astuteness of Ali, for the Companionship of Muawiya, the exoneration of Talha, Zubayr and Aisha, and a better freeing from the charge of treachery and rebellion than what I volunteered for Husayn and Abdullah b. Zubayr. Show us a more through exposition of Hizb ut-Tahrir, the crypto-Rafida with fanciful claims to work for a khilafa, than my series on the devious cult. Show us any research in any language online that has shed light on the Taymiyyan moment in the Ottoman Empire at its greatest expanse as expansive as mine. Bring us a more nuanced exploration of the restoration of tawhid and the political reinstatement of the Athari creed at the hands of the Wahhabis than my take on the subject – and we're barely half-way through yet. Show us a more consistent defence of the mujāhidin of Falastin against their detractors from the yahūd, ghulāt and the munāfiqin than what I routinely translate from the ulamā ar-rāsikhin. I'm not highlighted any of the above by way of boasting, astaghfirullah. Whatever I produce of good is due to Allah's Grace alone in spite of myself, while the flaws are entirely mine. I'm only mentioning all this because you insisted, and also, to illustrate which of us really have the right to claim Islamic orthodoxy. Because the reality is you, brother, mix truth with falsehood, raising the corrupt Bible over your head while throwing Abu Bakr as-Siddiq under your feet. There's nothing to gloat about regards your debating Christians either. This is something many of us did in our teens and 20s, though with significant differences. For one, unlike you, we weren't put to trial by having to play to fanboys or a camera crew. Also, while we were keen to have our learning validated from the ulamā, those who are obviously more knowledgeable than we were/are. Your authority, by contrast, is given to you from the juhalā and the ghawghā – fickle-minded followers who are even more ignorant and immature than you are. Insha'Allah, a long-form video on the Devil’s Deception of the Dawah Bros is not too far. In the meantime, I hope you'll sit down, wise up, and take some critical nasiha.

The death of young Henry Nowak in handcuffs, while his murderer stands above him, lying through his teeth. A very hard watch. Having witnessed something similar happen to a loved one (as will have many others), this brings back all those memories one wishes one didn't have.

Yet again, we see the evil consequences of the ignorant Muslim working against the interests of dawa, provoking blasphemous Islamophobic attacks against the sacred symbols of Islam. If one suspects a non-Muslim evangelist of being a bad faith actor, a grifter or clip farmer, then there's no obligation to engage them at all. On the contrary, as with brother @MARazack26 Al-Yamani's dignified example, we see a firm refusal to engage, in keeping with Allah's Commands (see: Q.26:63, Q.4:140, Q6:68). But if you are going to engage, then keep it respectful (again, in keeping with Quranic ethics, such as Q.16:25), so as not to provoke a far more egregiously disrespectful reaction, as we're warned against in Q.6:108. Instead, what we see here is the Muslim side contribute to a 4-fold evil: 1. A Muslim suggests that the Paul and Jesus!?! (unclear) are portrayed in the Bible as being homosexuals. 2. The Christian, @GodLogic_GL, then retaliates—after his repeated warnings not do go down that route—by throwing the accusation of homosexuality back at the Prophet of Islam. 3. A Muslim, @smile2jannah, shares a misleading, out-of-context clip of the non-Muslim retaliation only. 4. Christians all over the shop then have field day attacking Islam on account of deceitful Muslim behaviour — as if the initial, unnecessarily disrespectful behaviour wasn't enough of a home-goal. To add insult to injury, its the Christian who is directing Muslims to behave according to the Quranic principle outlined in Q.6:108! I've never communicated with Zeeshan @smile2jannah. He doesn’t strike me as a dishonest person — though its bad enough he associates with dishonest people. Its entirely possible he forwarded the clip just as he received it. Of course, due diligence dictates that you first check the wider context of any clip you forward to avoid future regret. Then again, diligence and discernment are maybe too much to expect form people these days. 😔 Imam Qurtubi (d. 1273) on Q.6:108: حُكْمُهَا بَاقٍ فِي هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ عَلَى كُلِّ حَالٍ، فَمَتَى كَانَ الْكَافِرُ فِي مَنَعَةٍ، وَخِيفَ أَنْ يَسُبَّ الْإِسْلَامَ، أَوِ النَّبِيَّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ، أَوِ اللَّهَ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ فَلَا يَحِلُّ لِمُسْلِمٍ أَنْ يَسُبَّ صُلْبَانَهُمْ وَلَا دِينَهُمْ وَلَا كَنَائِسَهُمُ، وَلَا يَتَعَرَّضُ إِلَى مَا يُؤَدِّي إِلَى ذَلِكَ ، لِأَنَّهُ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الْبَعْثِ عَلَى الْمَعْصِيَةِ "This ruling remains in effect among this umma in all circumstances. So when the disbelievers are in a position of strength and its feared they will revile Islam or the Prophet or Allah, Mighty and Majestic; then it is not permissible for a Muslim to revile their crosses or their religion or their churches, or to do anything that would lead to such like. Because that is tantamount to provoking and inciting towards sin."

Of course, no scholar of the Bible says that Jesus preached the trinity. The trinity, as you known, began developing as a dogma from the 2nd century onwards — after its claimed the Greek Bible was originally complied. The problem here, brother, is more fundamental though. Our dawa is to the Islam of the Quran, not to unreliable reports of what may or may not have been passed down of the sayings of Jesus in the Bible. "That basically makes the debate on whether the Quran is true" is exactly the point of dawa. To have the people read and consider the Quran. Sure, there can be utility in pointing out contradictions between what Christianity claims of Jesus and what their texts claim Jesus said of himself. But all that should be no more than a means to an end: to bring the discussion to Islam itself. The problem with the bible-aggrandising Muslim movement is that you'll spend the entire time wrangling over the semantics of a corrupted scripture, going to such extremes that you'll start making positive truth claims for the Bible in a way that's only allowed for the Quran. Essentially, you'll make the Bible your dawa, betraying an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the Quran's capacity to argue its own case. قُلْ فَلِلّهِ الْحُجَّةُ الْبَالِغَةُ Say, "But with Allah is the perfect proof and argument." (Q.6:149) This is why the debate title/prompt, "Did Jesus teach the Trinity?"—apparently proposed by the Muslim side—is so misleading. Its a dereliction of the duty of dawa when you've no intention of appealing to the only certain sources for Jesus' teaching: the Quran and Sunna. A more truthful title would have been, "Did the Jesus of the Bible teach the Trinity?", as then its clear that this discussion is not an Islamic one, but a secular critique which an atheist or non-evangelical Christian could equally make. But the reason the Muslim side were so willing to assume the role of the secular critic rather than that of the caller to Islam is because, as they conceded right at the outset, they recognise the Greek Gospels as representing the true historical account of Jesus, wherein his true teachings are found. In other words, in effect, the Muslims were not making a secular case after all, but a religious case. Just not the case for the religion of Islam, sadly. So to that [religion of Allah] invite, and remain on a right course as you are commanded, and do not follow their inclinations but say, "I have believed in what Allah has revealed of the Quran, and I have been commanded to do justice among you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord. For us are our deeds, and for you your deeds. There is no [need for] argument between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is the [final] destination." (Q.42:15)

What a sad indictment of the new Bible-aggrandising dawah trend: no Quran, no Sunna, no articulation of Islamic creed whatsoever. Instead, we get a nearly two-hour argument over the semantics of Christian texts—texts that hold no truth value for a Muslim. And no, the Greek Gospels are not "historical accounts of Jesus." They are pseudo-biographical narratives scripted to serve the pagan-pandering church of Saul the Tarsian. It's only through what Allah revealed to His Messenger Muhammad ﷺ that we know with certainty who the son of Mary was, what he believed and what he preached. Islam rests upon the Quran. That is the believer's call. Leave it to others to invite to book of the religion of Paul. وَقَالَ الرَّسُولُ يَا رَبِّ إِنَّ قَوْمِي اتَّخَذُوا هَـٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ مَهْجُورًا And the Messenger has said, "O my Lord, indeed my people have taken this Quran with neglect." (Q. 25: 30) @TaymiApologia @dawahxdialogues @SeerahDawah