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.