Note: The Muslims Canadian Congress is not a Muslim-friendly group in North America. They can be found pandering to liberal secularists and right wing politicians, rather than helping Muslims.
Remember that splendid debate that Tarek Fatah slipped out of this winter? He and his miserable cohorts at the Muslim Canadian Congress (MCC) cited several reasons why they decided to turn around and head back home. Actually, Tarek Fatah didn't head back home, but that is not what's important here. We investigate one of his reasons for fleeing the debate that will prove that the man and his silly organization are fake 'liberal' Muslims. Enjoy our special feature presentation:
If Muslims, or non-Muslims, are reading this please do your duty and spread this video as far and wide as you can! Show our fellow Canadian brothers and sisters that this man is a fake!
24 comments:
I am glad to be a visitant of this sodding web site! , appreciate it for this rare information! .
LOL I had no idea who this guy is until I saw this.
But I can see why Muslims would not like this guy. After all he wrote a book titled "The JEW is NOT MY ENEMY". Yeah dont want a guy like that representing Islam.
Its amazing how you Muslims nit pick at every little thing.
Now I'm not defending this guy I beleive these so called "Liberal Peacful Muslims" are decieving themselves and others. I do find it interesting that Muslims reject these guys.
But lets take a look at the video. Part of of a statement is read
"after arriving at the event, he was told that a new moderater had been appointed after the first moderator declined to attend"
So to the Muslim mind this means that he found out that the first moderator failed to show up and there was a new moderator.
Then at the end of the video a group of Muslms is gathered around a computer stating that Mr Fatah had found out 15 hours before the event that the first moderator would not attend.
SO this means he is a liar. But lets take a look at the offical release that is in the video.
It sites numerous reasons for backing out of the debate. Amoung them are...
"hostile enviornment, "ARBITRARILY APPOINTED A NEW MODERATER" private security guards who threatened and expelled them from the Mosque...
It was recomened to Mr Fathah that he not enter the Mosque and become a target for violence.
It continues...
Mr Fathah was told that NAMF had unilateraly appointed a new moderator... They did not CONSIDER THE THREE NAMES SUGGESTED BY HIM.
So lets take a look at the events.
1. The first moderator backs out. Mr Fatah is informed about this 15 hours before the debate.
2. Mr Fathah suggests three other moderators.
3. His supporters arrive at the debate, to a hostile enviorment, learn that a new moderator is appointed, and are threatened and finaly kicked out by security guards.
4. Mr Fatah arrives at the debate, knowing that there will be a new moderator. After his arrival he learns who the new moderator is, and it is not one of the names that he sugested. He is told during this same time about this supporters being threatened and ejected as well as the hostile crowd.
So did MR Fatah lie? THe answer is NO. THe issue was not on his learning that the original moderator had declined 15 hours earlier, but learning that the new moderator was chosen with out considering the names he had sugested.
When he sugested those names is unclear. It could of been 15 hours earlier when he leanred that the first moderator had backed out. It could of been already discussed when the debate was set up as in a list of names if this one declines etc..
It could of been when he arrived, I find this unlikely since he new about the modertaor 15 hours before. However it is possible if all three names where in attendence.
Muslims crack me up. Everythig is a lie to you. Its like your default position.
But hey I support you Muslims rejecting this guy, after all how can you have a Muslim who writes a book titled "The JEW IS NOT MY ENEMY" representing Islam.
"He leanred a new moderator was appointed after the original modeateor declined"
THis is clear english. It is saying that he learned about the appointment of the moderator, and the rest of the sentence gives the reason that a new moderator had to be appointed. That part is not for his knowlege that is stating why it was done to those who are reading the statement or those that are listing to it being read.
It is not saying that he leanred that the first moderator had not shown and a new moderator was selected. Had that been the intent of the sentence then it would of gone something like this...
On Arriving MR Fatah learned that the original moderator had declined to show and a new moderator was appointed".
WEll I spent to much time on pointing out your foolishness.
And I can disprove your nonsense with just a few sentences:
We have an e-mail that was sent to Tarek Fatah when the change in moderator was made. I decided not to include it in the video, but you can find it the 1 hour vidoc made about the debate that failed to take place on YT. So, mind you, keep your facts in check.
So he knew what to expect 'on arrival'. Time to go to do your research, lackey.
At NON REFUTING ACTS 17
You wrote...
"So, mind you, keep your facts in check."
HOw can I do that when you do not include all the facts? I find it intersting that you have a "EMAIL" that proves the man is lying but you fail to put it in your accusation video. Yeahhhhhhh
This alleged email that you failed to put in your video,
Does it mention who the new moderator is going to be, or does it just state there going to have to get a new moderator?
Does it contain a response from him? OR was it just a email sent out. If the latter is the case then how do you now he got the email before he showed up?
Either way doesnt change the fact that the offical statement listed a number of reasons for the cancelation of the debate. Amoung them is violent MUSLIMS at a Mosque, private security guards, throwing out his supporters etc...
But hey what do I care, you guys can call him a Muslim all you want. For all I know he is a MUSLIM.
I am curious what was the debate supposed to be about?
again at NON REFUTING
You wrote...
"So he knew what to expect 'on arrival'. Time to go to do your research, lackey."
THe question is not did he know there would be a change in moderators, the question is did he know who the new moderator was going to be 15 hours before arrival?
Go watch the 1 hour documentary. How else would Tarek Fatah had known that Karen Mock declined t be moderator? What you think he telepathically connected with NAMF and found that out by himself? Be honest.
And for the record, I don't have the e-mail. NAMF does.
@Again at NON REFUTING.
YOu first wrote....
"We have an e-mail... I decided not to include it in the video"
Now you write...
"And for the record, I don't have the e-mail. NAMF does."
So if you do not have the email? THen how could you not PUT A EMAIL INTO YOUR VIDEO THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE? Second you said WE that implies that YOU are apart of the WE and have the email.
I guess another MUSLIM just got Busted lieing, I'm sorry practicing his relegion.
You also wrote...
"How else would Tarek Fatah had known that Karen Mock declined t be moderator?"
He could of gotten a phone call?
But thats not the question. We all agree that he know that Karan Mock was a no show 15 hours before the debate. The Question is did he know who the new moderator was going to be?
Are you having trouble reading in-between the lines? Grow up.
@Non Refuting
you wrote...
"Are you having trouble reading in-between the lines? Grow up."
The problem with people who "READ BETWEEN THE LINES" is that they do not READ what is within the lines.
So since you did not answer any of my qurestions I will just mark this down as another SNOWITE exposed again for LYING also known as PRACTICING ISLAM.
I am curious what was the debate supposed to be about?
Believe what you want; like you blindly believe in your pastors and that Jesus is your 'god'. :)
@Non Refuting
You wrote...
"Believe what you want; like you blindly believe in your pastors and that Jesus is your 'god'. :) "
No sir, I beleive Jesus is God becasue the Bible teaches he is God, and because he IS GOD.
You believe that the Quran is the word of allah, because the Quran says so, inspite of the evidence to the contrary.
Case in point.
The Quran says that there should be pre mohamed Islamic followers of Jesus 600 years prior to Mohamed.
Yet no Muslim can show any evidence of this group existing.
When confronted with this Muslims respons overwhelmiling. "We do not need history we have the Quran and if the Quran says so then that is good enough for us"
Non Refuting BTW I have been researching this guy Tarek Fatah, and I found this interview.
Tell me what do you disagree with?
Tarek Fatah
No,
I actually have a reason. You however, believe* the Bible is God's Words without any proof whatsoever. That, is blind faith.
Rad Mod vs. Refuting17.
This was great. Another Snow-ite Bites the Dust.
RAd mod:
1. which bible do you believe?
http://thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=1575
2. you say that we muslims have no proof and we rely on our own scriptures. Not only is that a fallacy, but what ground do you as a christian have to stand on with such accusations? Let us look into jewish theology and prechristian theology to see if anyone, ANYONE believed God would come in the from of a man..
3. Read a little more on your religion, since you like watching videos all day.
http://thedeenshow.com/show.php?action=detail&id=1749
4. Just because you know how to use youtube does not mean a "snow-ite" bit the dust. Sounds like you hang out wihd dustbag shamoun too much.
@Anon who wrote...
Rad Mod vs. Refuting17.
Thanks, but I have to say wasnt much of a challange. I mean the guy posts a video accusing Some Muslim of being a liar because he canceled a debate.
THe evidence he provided in his breif video did not back up his accuasation.
He then claimed that he had a email proving that this particular Muslim new about the moderator change but that he decided not to put this crucial evidence in his video.
When questioned about this EMAIL EVIDENCE that he failed to put in the video, he responded that HE actually did not have it that it was the the debate orginizers who possed the alleged email.
When questioned further, if he had proof the email was recieved, i.e. was there a response, or knowlege of what was said in the alleged email.
For instance was the email just informing him that the original moderator backed out and that they needed to select a new one. Which is not in dispute, or did it give the name of the new moderator, which is the dispute.
His response was for me to "Read between the lines" or watch some hour video of which he never provided a link to, and of course the usual projection and ad homeniem attacks.
I think it is obvious that what was displayed here is the classic Muslim example of "I don't want to hear what you have to say, so I will just over exagerate and over emphisize the most trvial thing and call you a liar," there by justifying the Muslims willingness to remain ignorant.
@The Anon who wrote...
1. which bible do you believe?
And then provided a link to the Deen Show.
You then wrote...
3. Read a little more on your religion, since you like watching videos all day. And then provided a second link to THe DEEN SHOW.
You then concluded with
" Just because you know how to use youtube does not mean a "snow-ite" bit the dust. Sounds like you hang out wihd dustbag shamoun too much."
I find this intersting you tell me to read a little more and accuse me of watching video's but it is you who provided video's as your evidence. LOL talk about a classic case of Muslim projection.
Also this comment section is on a video that one of the blog contributes put together and posted as evidence that a fellow Muslims is a liar. A Muslim that until this blog and this video I knew nothing about. This same contributer encouraged me to watch a hour video on youtube regarding this Muslim. I did a search and I found the video that I posted, asking what exactly it was that he disagreed with.
And as far as Sam Shamoun is concerened I have no idea what any of this has to do with him.
But I will answer your questions.
As far as your first question can I get some claification as to what you mean by "BIBLE" can you quantify your question please.
For instance I believe in the LINUX Bible, I believe in the Guns and Ammo BIBLE, just to name a few. So could you clerify your question as to what your understanding of "THE BIBLE" is?
Your second question.
2. you say that we muslims have no proof and we rely on our own scriptures. Not only is that a fallacy, but what ground do you as a christian have to stand on with such accusations?
WEll the Quran claims in two places that there where pre islamic true followers of Jesus. That Allah made them victorious over the group that disbelieved even until the day of judgment.
So my question is can yuo prove from history that such a group existed for the 600 years before Mohamed.
This group would of had to believe in in all of the following.
1. Jesus was born of a virgin
2. Jesus was not divine
3. Jesus either was not crucified and or did not die on the cross.
Can you demostrate this group from history?
Muslims also claim that Jesus was given a book called the Ingeel. Can you provide this book?
Was this the book that these true pre islamic followers of Jesus had in their possesion?
Since it is only Muslims who claim this. Can you quote the first paragaph, first sentence first word form the Book that Jesus was given?
WEll thats it, so if you can not provide any evidence to the proceding questions, then my assertion is proved, I stand on sollid ground on the ROCK of the confession that Jesus Christ is YHWY.
Oh I almost forgot, you asked...
" Let us look into jewish theology and prechristian theology to see if anyone, ANYONE believed God would come in the from of a man.."
This is what the Living God said in Zach
"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
Rad Mod,
Not only do you have problems with the authenticity of your bible texts but you also have the problem of correct and consistent translation of the OT.
Here is a summary of the problem with the christian translation from messiahtruth.com:
Christian apologists and missionaries make the claim that a single verse lifted out of the 12th Chapter in the Book of Zechariah, Zechariah 12:10, prophesies the crucifixion of Jesus.
"The piercing look that was taken at this verse, in the form of a detailed analysis of this verse using the Hebrew grammar and contextual consistency, demonstrated that its common Christian interpretation is incompatible with both grammatical structure and correct context, and cannot be supported from within the Hebrew Bible. It was shown that the primary reason for this is that Christian interpretations are based on mistranslated and altered texts from both parts of the Christian Bible, and which has created irreconcilable problems vis-à-vis both the Hebrew text and the historical record."
@ Wolf
You provided a quote but I did not see your source? Could you please provide it.
I'm looking at the Stones Tanak, that is a Jewish Tanak based on the Masoratic text which came about 400 years after Christ, and this is how it reads.
"I will pur out upon the house of David and upon the inahbitant of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and suplications. The will look toward ME, becasue of thsoe whom they have stabbed They will mourn over HIM as one mourns over an only child and embittered over him like like the embitterment over a deceased firstborn."
The scrolls found in Qumron which date 400 to 600 years read...
[And I will pour upon] the house of David, [and upon the inahabitant of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of suplication; and they shall look to me whom] they [have pier]ced; and they shall mourn... 4QXII.
Translation the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Martin Abegg Jr, Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich.
Now the brackets indicate sections of the text that is worn away or distintigrated. However the reading is supported based on accepted paleographic techniques, ie. There are only so many characters that can fit on the same page in the same line, and make meaningfull words combined with the surviving text.
Notice a couple of things in the translations.
The tanslation of tha Masoratic text which came 400 years after Jesus and was vowl pointed as comentary reads...
"becasue of those whom they have stabbed"
So we have what seems to be multiple peopel being stabbed. But then we read...
"They will MOURN OVER HIM" so now we have a single person being mourned over.
Combine that with the Dead Sea scroll rendering and it is evident that the septugent reading is supported, in first century jewish palastine.
@Wolf
I'm sorry I see you did site a source mesianictruth.com. I find that interesting.
A Muslim asked if I could provide evidence that pre christian era jews believed that the Messiah would be God incarnate.
WEll I have a challange for Muslims. Can they prove that Jews believed in the Islamic Messiah?
In other words did Jesus whom you Muslims claim is the awaited Jewish Mesiah, did he fullfill their expectations of who the Messiah would be?
@The Muslim Anon who asked me the two questions.
First a correction, when I wrote Pre Islamic True followers of Jesus.
I should of wrote PRE MOHAMED ISLMIC FOLLOWERS OF JESUS, either way I think you get the point.
So whats wrong, no response its been over 24 hours.
DId I stump the ISLMIC CHUMP AGAIN.
Radmod said:
In other words did Jesus whom you Muslims claim is the awaited Jewish Mesiah, did he fullfill their expectations of who the Messiah would be?
I say:
Maybe, maybe not. God is not bound by the expectations of the Jewish people.
Post a Comment