Unfortunately, this is where White drives off the cliff. He approvingly reposts the propaganda of Yasir Qadhi. White hides behind evangelism and apologetics, but that's a decoy. Nothing about Christian apologetics or evangelism requires him to collaborate with the enemy. White can evangelize Muslims and debate Muslims without providing cover fire for terrorist front organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and their spokesman.
Notice how Qadhi draws the lines. Notice what Qadhi says about the views of Spencer and his "ilk". By reposting Qadhi's screed, with approval, White is siding with the terrorists and their disinformation campaign.
White has entangled himself in a morally incestuous quid pro quo where he defends Qadhi in exchange for Qadhi defending him. A Christian apologist should never put himself in such a compromising situation. You need to retain your independence. White has lost his way.
Dr. Qadhi has commented on recent events.Many of you are aware that I had a dialogue with James White, a Reformed Baptist minister who has achieved a solid reputation amongst many conservative Christians. (You can find the videos of the debates in the first comment).What most of you are probably not aware is the severe online character assassination and smear campaigns that Mr White has had to endure from some of his fellow Christians, albeit of the Far Right sector of this country.Why would any believing Christian be irritated at Minister White, who was allowed into our mosque, and who was very frank about his beliefs regarding Jesus, the Redemption, the Trinity and even the fact that he believes all of us are going to Hell!? (Listen to the entire two-part lecture to get the whole picture, and my response).Well, apparently, these Far Right individuals truly believe that Muslims are so dangerous, so evil, so deadly, that the mere fact that Mr. White can sit with us, and essentially humanize us as people who believe in our faith, entails that Mr. White is in fact helping and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafis, Al-Qaeda and other groups (albeit indirectly - he is, according to the analysis of such discerning self-professed intellectuals as Robert Spencer, a 'useful idiot').A few points to make:1 - For the record, I did not personally receive any negative comments from any Muslim for inviting Mr. White into our masjid (although I'm sure some Muslims online and in other parts of the world might object). From our side, we all understood the need to have a frank dialogue, and that I speak at a Church where most people had never met a Muslim, and Mr. White speak at our mosque in return.2 - I cannot deny that one of the reasons any Muslim would talk about Islam in front of a non-Muslim audience is to demonstrate the beauty of Islam, and hope that some amongst them find in it the true message that Jesus himself preached. And I know full well that Mr. White's intentions, which he has expressed explicitly, was to hope that some Muslims convert as they listen to him explain Christianity.3- However, one of my overriding reasons to wish to speak at a conservative Church was quite simply to dispel the utterly nonsensical notion that the majority of Muslims somehow wish to overthrow the government and install Sharia law in America. The truly terrifying reality for all of us Muslims is the evil nature of the hatred that people like Spencer and people of his ilk perpetrate. That hatred, compounded with the fear-mongering of politicians and the false patriotism of a disgruntled group, whips up the popular support needed to pass such dastardly measures as the recent ban on Muslim immigrants from seven countries. If things persist and the situation deteriorates, that hatred will eventually be used to inflict violence and persecute our women and children and us, as the Japanese were here in America, and as other races and religions were at times of persecution in other lands.I would be happy if any Christian who listened to my lecture converted. But if they choose not to convert, that's their business to decide, and Allah's to judge. It is not my duty to do anything more than speak.Islamophobic bigots like Spencer have fabricated this myth of us Muslims (less than 1 % of this land!) having desires to subjugate the rest of the 99 % to our laws and religion. Sadly, many innocent Christians believe these lies, and Spencer continues to profit from that fear (See: http://www.thedailybeast.com/muslim-bashing-can-be-very-luc…).4- So, essentially, what terrifies Spencer and the Far Right bigots who falsely invoke the noble Prophet Jesus' name as they spey hatred is to actually see two very committed people, a Baptist Minister and a Shaykh, agree to disagree, even as they harshly dismiss each other's faiths and theologies, and argue exclusive salvation for their own faiths. That simple civility - the act of agreeing to disagree - is something that these individuals, wallowing in hate and lies and wanting the rest of us to do the same, simply cannot tolerate.Hence, the vicious attack on Mr. White.James, if you're reading this, know that I strongly disagree with your views on Islam, and that it pains me deeply, because I genuinely care about you and like you, that you have such negative (and in my opinion incorrect) views about the Quran, and about our Prophet. Yet, that disagreement doesn't stop me from having a genuine respect for your commitment and sincerity. And that is why I will defend you against your fellow Christians as they smear your name and accuse you of all types of falsehoods.The real idiots are those who wish to provoke fear and whip up hatred between the two largest religions of the world. Disagree all you want, but live and let live. And if you claim to be a follower of Jesus, then as a Muslim let me tell you: you might want to start by practicing what he preached.
And I just got White's "What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Quran" about a month ago. I wonder if it addresses some of these topics.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably a good book. Of course, that's primarily about history, not the present situation.
Deletehttp://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/what-every-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-quran
DeleteThanks for the link, that's very handy!
DeleteI continue to be amazed by how far James has deteriorated. He now resorts to using the same tactics that he has decried for years; ie portraying your critic has a "phobe". He tends to label his detractors as Islamophobes in order to shut down debate.
ReplyDeleteHe justifies his less charitable behavior towards Christians of other stripes, in comparison to muslims, by saying that he holds Christians to a higher standard. Is that what Jesus meant when he said that all will know that we are his disciples when we have love for one another?
For years he has talked about following the lead of the apostles when it comes to evangelizing, and has rightly criticized Arminians that insist on saying to anyone "Christ died for you." Why has he neglected his own advice now? Did Peter or Paul invite pagans into the church or temple in order to better understand their religion?
He seems to refuse to take correction from anyone and is playing the martyr card.
"By reposting Qadhi's screed, with approval, White is siding with the terrorists and their disinformation campaign."
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of dots need to be connected before we can go with "siding with the terrorists and their disinformation campaign." And I think it should be done explicitly. You're essentially saying that Dr. Qadhi is a terrorist supporter and we need actual evidence of that when he explicitly has said he doesn't support terrorism.
Not many dots need to be connected. I provided documentation in a previous post that Qadhi belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. And I've read multiple sources which classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. For instance:
Deletehttp://www.meforum.org/6562/the-muslim-brotherhood-fountain-of-islamist
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/23/mislim-brotherhood-earns-its-terrorist-designation/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436783/obama-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism-radical-islam-violent-extremism
To be fair many of the people criticizing White don't know what they are talking about. I have heard them take him out of context, and act like he is going liberal multiple faith "dialogues" where everyone says "I'm okay, you're okay." He isn't doing that. Steve, I'm not saying you misrepresented him, but some of the things said about him by others is downright unfair. At least he is actually trying to take the gospel to people.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteSorry, but I'm with Steve Hays on this one. James White is wittingly or unwittingly letting Muslims like Qadhi use him for their purposes. Better to listen to someone like David Wood on Islam instead. Wood is more reliable on Islam as a Christian apologist.
DeleteWhite is "taking the gospel" to Muslims but the way White does so comes at a cost. One can "take the gospel" to Muslims and evangelize Muslims without making the kinds of compromises White makes. Again, David Wood does so, for example. Wood debates Muslims, dialogues with Muslims, interacts with Muslims, etc.
DeleteI don't know but maybe and address it if you would Steve, just maybe he is interpreting become all things to all men that he might win some of them in a way that reflects your sentiments the way you are?
ReplyDeleteI have not thought about his interactions with Islam the way you are.
Here are the Words:::>
1Co 9:19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.
1Co 9:20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.
1Co 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1Co 9:23 I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.
Hm, "becoming all things to all men" doesn't mean Christian apologists ought to ignore realities like Qadhi's affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, like what Wood has described as the 3 stages of jihad which could very well be a component in part of Qadhi's own "evangelistic" strategy to advance Islam in the US and the West in general, etc.
DeleteThe apostle Paul seems to mean he is willingly to bend over backwards to further the gospel, but would the apostle Paul therefore likewise bend over backwards to accommodate, say, pagans who have a past and present history of murdering believers, but now coming to him in the guise of friendship (e.g. the Amalekites)?
Here's another verse to consider:
Delete"Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Matt 10:16)
Some people praise White for being invited to speak at Muslim mosques. Apparently that's something White can do that other Christian apologists can't do. Maybe the idea is something along the lines of only Nixon/White could go to China/Muslims. Or more weakly, maybe it's thought White is unique in being a Reformed Christian apologist who can build bridges between Christians and Muslims.
ReplyDeleteHowever, is White really the only Reformed Christian apologist invited to speak at Muslim mosques? Are there no others?
Also, what kind of bridge building is happening here? For instance, I wouldn't want to build a bridge for a troll. A troll would eventually use the bridge to exploit or attack others.
We could ask why White is being invited to speak at mosques by Muslims like Qadhi? Is it because these Muslims genuinely want interfaith dialogue? Doesn't interfaith dialogue try to bridge two or more faiths by finding some common ground? White may be trying to find common ground, but what common ground is Qadhi offering? If none, then is White really being invited to mosques for genuine interfaith dialgoue? Or does Qadhi have an ulterior motive for inviting White to speak?
Why are Muslims uniquely "the enemy" more than Jews or Hindu's or anything else? Or is evangelism and love of neighbor (including the Samaritain and even Your enemy) for everyone other than muslims?
ReplyDeletei) I didn't say Muslims in general were the enemy. However, Islam is an engine of violence and oppression, on a scale unmatched by other living non-Christian religions.
Deleteii) Nothing I said is inconsistent with evangelizing Muslims or showing neighbor-love to Muslims. Pay attention to the actual context of the post.
From what I have seen and researched, there is no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood wants to do "civilizational Jihad" - using the gracious laws of the USA to eventually undermine our own democracy. But also, it seems that the US government could not prosecute CAIR and the brother-hood connections ("unindicted co-conspirators" - a term that prosecutors have made up to make associations, but without enough evidence to prosecute) , because the connections were previous to CAIR (Council on American -Islamic Relations) being founded and started. (from what I have researched)
ReplyDeleteBut, what I have seen Dr. Qadhi do is when some of his students take steps to actually start doing terrorist actions, he has denounced them (traveling to Syria, and came out against ISIS, etc.). Holding him accountable for actions of a few of his former students seems to go too far, unless it can be shown that those students based their actions on his specific teachings.
I think your words are too harsh and over the top for what Dr. White did.
I always have to look up some words in your posts - like "Quisling" - collaborating with the enemy - the background on that is the Norweigian guy who collaborated with the Nazis - that is over the top to use that against Dr. White.
White hides behind evangelism and apologetics, but that's a decoy.
How is that a "decoy" or "hiding", if he sincerely sought to put apologetics and evangelism to unreached people like Muslims first in priority above associations and future potential political actions?
writing "he drove over the cliff" and "White has lost his way" and
"White has entangled himself in a morally incestuous quid pro quo where he defends Qadhi in exchange for Qadhi defending him."
these are over the top language for merely:
1. Putting evangelism and apologetics first in priority over future potential political actions.
2. Not pre-judging (actually obeying Matthew 7:1-6 and yet not in the liberal way)
3. Seeing that ISIS put out two calls for deaths threats against Dr. Qadhi was significant
4. Seeking to interact with a conservative believing Muslim scholar who is a US citizen born; and cleric and hear him in his own words, in order to accurately criticize Islam; that would seem to be good thing, as is.
Spencer and others have exposed details about Dr. Qadhi that I sincerely did not know about; and Dr. White probably did not know about those Brotherhood connections either. My guess is that he did not spend his time on that kind of research, like Robert Spencer does. But those concerns are future potential political actions or something worse, like actual violence or lying.
In God's sovereignty and providence, what the Dialogue did was bring out a lot of things more out into the open as far as Brotherhood connections and potential future actions by Muslims to be aware of. (by Spencer and other resources that you have pointed to)
Part 1, continued because of space
"But, what I have seen Dr. Qadhi do is when some of his students take steps to actually start doing terrorist actions, he has denounced them (traveling to Syria, and came out against ISIS, etc.). Holding him accountable for actions of a few of his former students seems to go too far, unless it can be shown that those students based their actions on his specific teachings."
DeleteWhere have I blamed him for the actions of his students? Can you find that in my post? No.
From what I've read, Qadhi belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, which many sources document is a front organization for militant jihad.
" the background on that is the Norweigian guy who collaborated with the Nazis - that is over the top to use that against Dr. White."
Not an all. Islam is a vast and cancerous evil. In the Facebook statement by Qadhi, which I quoted verbatim, Qadhi resorts to the same talking-points we get from CAIR spokesmen. By reposting Qadhi's propaganda on his on Facebook wall, White is siding with the Muslim Brotherhood against Robert Spencer. The lines are clear. And it's clear which side he's on. It's like the contrast between the Vichy regime and the French Resistance.
"if he sincerely sought to put apologetics and evangelism to unreached people like Muslims first"
Ken, explain how apologetics and/or evangelism requires White to side with the Muslim Brotherhood by plugging Qadhi's diatribe against Spencer? That's a total non sequitur.
"Not pre-judging"
It's hardly "prejudging" someone if he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
"Seeing that ISIS put out two calls for deaths threats against Dr. Qadhi was significant"
Ken, you have a really bad habit of rote repetition of the same taking-points, despite the fact that those have been refuted. As Spencer explained, in his debate with White, the fact that Qadhi antagonized ISIS doesn't mean Qadhi rejects militant jihad. Rather, Qadhi belongs to a rival jihadist faction.
"Seeking to interact with a conservative believing Muslim scholar who is a US citizen born; and cleric and hear him in his own words, in order to accurately criticize Islam; that would seem to be good thing, as is."
A red herring since I didn't criticize that.
"Spencer and others have exposed details about Dr. Qadhi that I sincerely did not know about; and Dr. White probably did not know about those Brotherhood connections either. My guess is that he did not spend his time on that kind of research, like Robert Spencer does."
The Spencer/White debate took place on June 21. White reposted Qadhi's diatribe on June 30.
Where have I blamed him for the actions of his students? Can you find that in my post? No.
DeleteYou did not directly, but that is what the links do that you gave in previous articles, like "character witness for the Devil"
Also, Qadhi wrote about the "underwear bomber", who attended one seminar of his - he was so quiet and never interacted with anyone.
The Spencer/White debate took place on June 21. White reposted Qadhi's diatribe on June 30.
I was talking about before the Dialogue in January. Posting Qadhi's statement does not White agrees with everything in it.
Muslims are suspicious of us also, only because we may watch Fox News or agree with Spencer, or voted for Presidents who took military action in Muslim countries, or we support Israel's right to exist and see Hamas as an evil Muslim terrorist group.
One of the main results of this whole controversy is the lumping of whole groups of us vs. them (Christians/the west vs. Muslims) type of responses and tendencies that controversies like this create.
. . . the fact that Qadhi antagonized ISIS doesn't mean Qadhi rejects militant jihad. Rather, Qadhi belongs to a rival jihadist faction.
I think you could argue that Qadhi may want to wage "civilizational Jihad", but not militant Jihad outside of Muslim lands in self-defense from their perspective. What evidence from Spencer is that Qadhi want to do militant Jihad right now?
At the time of Dr. White's dialogue, my position is that the parts 1 at the church and part 2 at the Mosque were good starting points in Muslims and Christians understanding each other; and that I would have liked to see a third meeting (second part of the Islam part at the church) where Dr. White could ask more questions about the Jihad and Islamic history material. See the kinds of questions I would have liked to have asked of Dr. Qadhi. Unfortunately, the reaction of those like Brannon Howse and Sam Shamoun and other Evangelicals who support them, have probably driven Dr. Qadhi and others like him further away so that they will just not say anything any more and not engage at all.
I meant to give this link of my questions that I would have liked to see asked of Dr. Qadhi at a 2nd part to the church talk or 3rd part after the Mosque part. It probably won't happen now.
Deletehttps://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/muslim-christian-dialogue-dr-james-white-and-dr-yasir-qadhi/
"Posting Qadhi's statement does not White agrees with everything in it."
DeleteSorry, Ken, but that just doesn't cut it. Islam is a mortal enemy of Christianity, Judaism, and the Bill of Rights. If White disagrees with some of Qadhi's statements in the Facebook post, it's incumbent on him to distance himself from those statements.
"Muslims are suspicious of us also, only because we may watch Fox News or agree with Spencer, or voted for Presidents who took military action in Muslim countries, or we support Israel's right to exist and see Hamas as an evil Muslim terrorist group."
That's like saying atheists resent the fact that according to opinion polls, most Americans distrust atheists. So what? The distrust is merited.
"One of the main results of this whole controversy is the lumping of whole groups of us vs. them (Christians/the west vs. Muslims) type of responses and tendencies that controversies like this create."
There's nothing necessary wrong with lumping. For instance, most Catholic laymen would never molest teenage boys. Yet they support an institution where that's rampant. So they are morally complicit in the misconduct of bishops and priests.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteBut, it seems to me, we as Christians should be aware that the parallel is like Theonomy (or conservative Christians who want a more Christian morality in the society and public discourse), which, if I understand Theonomy rightly; that is, a truly evangelical Postmillennial version of it would say that if true conversions take place and whole families and communities are converted and changed, and society will be changed into a more Christian society and as it grows, laws will be enacted that reflect a more and more Christian worldview - for example, overturning Roe vs. Wade, making abortion illegal, overturning the "same sex marriage" Obergfell case; making laws against homosexuals being able to adopt, Christian counseling for Trans-genderism and same sex attractions, laws against pornography, against public bad language on TV,etc. Allowing a Christian Worldview to confront and question the theory of Darwinian Evolution in public schools, etc.
Those potential future possibilities are what most Christians would like to see; but many in our society (liberals, secularists, Democrats, atheists, homosexuals, etc.) would (and actually do a lot in evangelism - I have had several atheists and homosexuals ask me point blank about those future potential things being in-acted, if we had the power and numbers to change society toward them, etc.)
The Muslim Brotherhood connections are a legitimate concern to make; and questions need to be asked; and IMO, the potential of them is similar to what Christians would like in future changes to ethics and morality in our culture/land/country; but to put evangelism and apologetics and at the same time not pre-judging and not knowing about those connections (until later) is not right to use the "over the top" language of "Quisling", "White had lost his way", "incestuous relationship", "dupe", "useful idiot", etc. You could make the legitimate points and questions without all that excessive emotional language and associations with Nazis, etc.
How is that a "decoy" or "hiding", if he sincerely sought to put apologetics and evangelism to unreached people like Muslims first in priority above associations and future potential political actions?
ReplyDeleteAre we required to do extensive research on a person, and not knowing the accuracy of every thing / report on the web, etc. before we witness to them?
I still don't see why the priority of apologetics and evangelism is some how a cover or decoy.
"Seeking to interact with a conservative believing Muslim scholar who is a US citizen born; and cleric and hear him in his own words, in order to accurately criticize Islam; that would seem to be good thing, as is."
ReplyDeleteA red herring since I didn't criticize that.
But that is what putting evangelism and apologetics FIRST does; and allows other groups (law enforcement, Spencer types that don't care about Biblical Evangelical Evangelism (He is Byzantine Roman Catholic - Maronite) to do their jobs in their sphere.
Ken, explain how apologetics and/or evangelism requires White to side with the Muslim Brotherhood by plugging Qadhi's diatribe against Spencer? That's a total non sequitur.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me to be a non-sequiter to say that Dr. White is siding with the Muslim Brotherhood just because he reposted Qadhi's article. Where did Dr. White do that?
Ken- I think you are making the same mistake that James does in comparing Jihad with theonomy and the desire for the Christianization of the world. James, on several occasions, has said that Christians shouldn't balk when Muslims speak of their desire for Jihad, after all, we also long for the day when every knee will bow in submission to Christ. The question is, do Christians intend to bring that about by the edge of the sword like jihadist's do, or do they trust that vengeance is the Lord's?
ReplyDeleteNow James is referring to some of his reformed critics as fundamentalists because they disagree with his methods of evangelism. Perhaps he needs to take a step back and reconsider his approach rather than dig his heels in any further.
Theonomy and bringing back the 15 laws of Moses by execution (as I recall, Walter Kaiser lists 15 death penalty laws in the Torah), is very similar to Sharia Islamic Law Hudd punishments.
Deleteshould have been "Hudud" (plural) or "Hadd" (singular) - the ultimate limits.
DeleteTheonomy, in the sense of the program expounded by Bahnsen and Rushdoony, is politically impotent. There's no realistic possibility, in the foreseeable future, that Congress (or even red states) will enact the civil code of the Mosaic Covenant into law.
DeleteAs for particular issues like "overturning Roe vs. Wade, making abortion illegal, overturning the 'same sex marriage' Obergfell case; making laws against homosexuals being able to adopt, Christian counseling for Trans-genderism and same sex attractions, laws against pornography, against public bad language on TV,etc. Allowing a Christian Worldview to confront and question the theory of Darwinian Evolution in public schools, etc."
How is that relevantly analogous to sharia? Presumably, you think those would be good developments.
"and not knowing about those connections (until later"
This post didn't comment on his dialogue with Qadhi, but his reposting Qadhi's post-debate propaganda. Surely White has been exposed to evidence of Muslim Brotherhood connections before he reposted Qadhi's post-debate propaganda. Apparently, he just doesn't care.
"Are we required to do extensive research on a person, and not knowing the accuracy of every thing / report on the web, etc. before we witness to them?"
Ken, you need to work harder at responding to my specific objection. The question at issue isn't "witnessing" to individuals, but vouching for Qadhi's disclaimers and reposting his propaganda.
"I still don't see why the priority of apologetics and evangelism is some how a cover or decoy."
Ken, that's a bait-n-switch.
"But that is what putting evangelism and apologetics FIRST does"
Ken, you keep repeating the same non sequitur. Putting evangelism and apologetics first doesn't necessitate that White vouch for Qadhi's bona fides or disseminate his propaganda. Those are entirely separation actions.
"It seems to me to be a non-sequiter to say that Dr. White is siding with the Muslim Brotherhood just because he reposted Qadhi's article. Where did Dr. White do that?"
Where did he do *what*? Repost Qadhi's Facebook rant? I reproduce that in toto in the body of this very post.
It is true that some/ a lot of Islamophobia does exist (Howse and Shamoun and those that support them exude it), even though a lot of that labeling is a tactic used to try to shut any opposition down; like the homosexuals who throw out "homophobia" or Social Justice Warriors who through out "racism" and "white privilege".
ReplyDeleteYou are right in that when CAIR uses it; it is a tactic to shut down opposition.
One of the links of your article, "Character Witness for the Devil" gives a list of terrorists / Jihadists whom Dr. Qadhi defended, such as John Walker Lindh, who joined the Taliban and Al Qaedah against the USA in Afghanistan - just for the sake of documentation and surety, there needs to be actual links to Qadhi's statements (written or audio) on those assertions. Without that, Muslims will just dismiss them.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, Qadhi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA). Qadhi is also the Dean of Academic Affairs and an instructor at the al Maghrib Institute, which has produced a large number of jihadis over the years including Tarek Mehanna, Ramy Zam Zam – the leader of the “Virginia 5,” Daniel Maldonado, Nuradin Abdi (founder of the Al Maghrib’s Ohio Chapter), and others.
Yasir Qadhi has been the keynote speaker at numerous prominent Muslim Brotherhood organizations (eg ICNA), works closely with terrorist organizations like Hamas and its leaders and has a long track record of publicly defending known terrorists such as: convicted terrorist leader Sami al Aria, convicted terrorist Ali al-Timimi, American Taliban fighter John Walker Lindh, convicted Al Qaeda terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, Tarek Mehanna, and others.
Yasir Qadhi was a trustee at the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas’ Islamic Society of Boston founded by Al Qaeda financier Abdurahman Alamoudi. This is the same ISB which nurtured the Boston Marathon bombers.
That last paragraph is especially serious and concerning, if Qadhi has links to those 2 entities. (the Boston Marathon bombers are 2 of the worst evil 2 people seen that carried out something on US soil; along with Hassan Nidal, and the Pakistani couple in San Bernadino.)
Qadhi writing about the "underwear bomber" here:
ReplyDeletehttp://muslimmatters.org/2010/10/18/yasir-qadhi-the-lure-of-radicalism-amongst-muslim-youth/
Vidkun Quisling of Norway did not preach to Himmler and other Nazis that they were wrong in their doctrines and practices; whereas in the Dialogue between Qadhi and Dr. White, they clearly told each other where they were wrong, and both agreed "we both agree that each other is going to hell"
ReplyDeleteThe parallel is wrong and over the top.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101III-Moebius-029-12%2C_Norwegen%2C_Besuch_Himmler%2C_Terboven_und_Quisling.jpg
Isn't Sarsour associated with Qadhi?
ReplyDelete