In this special edition of The Glazov Gang, I was joined by Saba Ahmed, an Islamic Lobbyist with the Republican Muslim Coalition, and Nonie Darwish, an ex-Muslim who is the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.
The two guests went toe-to-toe about Taqiyya, if Muslims can take kafirs as friends, if Islamic verses inspire and sanction Islamic terror, and much more.
Don’t miss it!
[The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Please donate through our Pay Pal account or our Indiegogo campaign. Also subscribe to our YouTube Channel and LIKE us on Facebook.]
jihad3tracker says
I have not watched this segment yet, so as to whether the courageous truth teller Dr. Ben Carson is mentioned by Jamie or his guests, I do not know.
But one thing is certain: Thanks to his honesty, and with our own persistence in awakening clueless Americans, we CAN enter a new epoch — from A.H. (After Hijra) to A.C. (After Carson).
jihad3tracker says
BTW, fellow counter-jihad expert David Wood made another one of his “five minute masterpieces” on this subject. He brings in a 2nd sura — from Chapter 106 if my ancient brain recalls correctly — that is not often cited as ADDITIONAL CONTEXT.
www dot answeringmuslims dot com. Type “taqiyya” in the searchbox.
Listen to that video from the very beginning’s intro music for a short laugh at David’s typical humor — an antidote to the toxic permission to lie that Islam’s petty “god” finds OK if it means his pet boy Muhammad could raise an army more effectively.
jihad3tracker says
CORRECTION — David cites Qur’an 16:106, and 3:58.
TheBuffster says
Thanks for the tip about David Wood;s Taqiyya video. I thought I’d seen al of his stuff, but I don’t remember this one. I think that might be the clearest explanation and debunking of taqiyya about taqiyya that I’ve ever heard.
Here’s the direct address to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4wBeshTsw
Huck Folder says
“…an Islamic Lobbyist with the Republican Muslim Coalition,”
stinks to high heaven. That RMC is almost a black hole on
Google, with its 10 billion (?) pages; no Wiki entry:
“The page “Republican Muslim Coalition” does not exist.”
So, is SHE it? Can anyone find anything more than this?
An empty website with NO content beyond tombstone data:
http://www.republicanmuslimcoalition.com/about-1.html
Here is the ONLY other citation on the first Google page:
https://faithinspires.wordpress.com/tag/republican-muslim-coalition/
“Saba Ahmed, of the Republican Muslim Coalition [= Saba Ahmed] states;
“According to the teachings of Islam, Muslim soldiers are strictly forbidden from harming innocent [moslem] children, the elderly, and women. [taqiyya] Not only is it forbidden for them to kill women, but also they may not harm or violate women in any way whatsoever. [taqiyya] (Abu Bakr Siddiq, First Islamic Caliph instructions to his Army)”
“It is our job as Muslims to hold our leaders accountable [HOW?] and stop them from committing evil crimes. ISIS is hurting Islam, Muslims, Christians, [not Jews?] women and children to the detriment of humanity [islam]. Allah’s cause is peace, security and justice. [via world domination] Success only comes with humility before God [ALL bow to allah!] and applying [islamic] justice.
“I urge Mr. Al-Baghdadi to read the Quran and Sunnah, [He knows more than you will EVER know, ignorant taqiyyating biotch] teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that advocate for [islamic] ‘peace’ and ‘justice’. Allah hates arrogant tyrants, [mohammed!] Islam needs peacemakers not militants.” [Where to find them?]
“Christians are nearest in affection to Muslims (5:82) and we must work together to establish divine justice on earth.”
Does she REALLY want to broadcast that verse to lovey-dovey ‘outreach groups?:
“Sahih International (5:82): You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, “We are Christians.” That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.”
So the rest of the umma can dismiss this whole farce as an exercise in futility, because this one-trick-pony is utterly worthless and contemptible.
DR BalavendriN says
one Islam is not a religion. when it bombs and kills the innocent
2whomis infedile ? non Muslims. so it clearly shows evil in Isis.,.
3, raping and killing is a part of islam ,so are we in animal kingdom
4, see Muslims in the east killers and rapist
5 women biting
6. who is coming back at the End according to quran Jesus,
7. iS Muhammad coming Back. >
8. you think the word Allah is Muslim trade mark , yes God of the world is Satan .
the whole world is in mess because of islam ,
conclusion . Rape , child abuse , killing equals to islam
Jay Boo says
Islam is evil but, it is not 100 % evil.
She seems very sincere.
She cannot explain discrepancy of verses and retreats to the comfort of positive verses as do others from other religions.
Unfortunately Islam is full of duplicity.
The meaning of “justice” in Islam for example.
nabi ZK (pbum) says
OK. So they are only allowed to lie when there is a war….But they are commanded to war on kafir types until the final day. Can you say loophole?
Saba clearly said that the qur’an was intended for all mankind and not just for mohametans. Makes you go Hmm….What if I, nabi ZK (pbum), prefer to live by a different ancient and arcane tome, and not the qur’an? What if the nabi mocks your silliness? What then?
It has verses of love and verses of hate but there is no contradiction in that cause it also has verses that say it has no contradictions…Q.E.D. This from the people who supposedly invented math. Go figure. 🙂
We, at least, are not deceived anymore.
Saba. You are a sad confused person wearing a silly magic hat. Do not think to lecture Us, We who already knew the story aisha told about spousal abuse. We who already knew all the loopholes.
Pff…
nabi ZK (pbum)
ninetyninepct says
What the heck is a pee bum?
Gea says
Over 65%of Koran is a hate speech against humanity and Muslim women, and 35% that is not teaching hate are pale copies of the
Bible, which were abrogated by the later hateful verses, after Mohamed fled to Medina and had discovered that he can get more loot , women and slaves by the sward than by the word. Islam is worse than Nazism as it also condones pedophilia, Dale, misogyny, looting and slavery,which is widely practiced among Muslims today!
We need to sue mosques for their hate speech, which is not protected under First Amendment as it creates jihadis and is qa root c as use of violence and terrorism today!
mortimer says
Sharia law’s goal is to remove the human rights and civil liberties of women and ‘others’.
Mirren10 says
”Islam is evil but, it is not 100 % evil.”
Please tell us the percentage that is *not* evil, as you have been asked to do previously.
Whether or not she ‘seems sincere’ is pointless. bin laden was ‘sincere’.
RG says
@Jay Boo. You say, “Islam is evil but, it is not 100 % evil.” Really??? So according to that kind of rationalization and logic, TAQIYYA is perfectly fine! I mean, for every 10 “evil” verses there is allegedly 1 peaceful verse! Think about it… Is that your argument?? Then you’re in complete agreement with taqiyya!!! ISLAM IS DEMONICALLY INSPIRED! Here’s the thing, Jay Boo, THE DEVIL KNOWS ALL ABOUT “TRUTH”. He can quote every verse of the Bible, verbatim! You really need to wake up and smell the rotting cadavers in the room, Jay Boo. ISLAM 100% IS EVIL!!!! And here’s what makes it so evil…. Mixing truth with lies and deceptions (which is paramount to islamic teachings) causes confusion JUST AS YOU WITNESSED IN THIS VIDEO by Jamie Glozov. Would you eat an apple that had an obvious wormhole in it???? Would you buy a house where you saw ‘one’ rat hiding in the corner??? Would you marry a woman (assuming that you are a male) who lied to you about ‘one’ of her previous marriages???? Pa-leeze, Jay Boo, STOP DEFENDING THIS EVIL DOCTRINE OF DEMONS!!!! ISLAM IS THE “RELIGION” OF HELL, SECOND TO NONE, HATCHED FROM THE “EVIL” MIND OF SATAN HIMSELF!!! DON’T WASTE YOUR TIME TRYING TO DEFEND IT!!!
Ren says
Saba Ahmed is totally brainwashed in regard to her understanding of islamic scriptures. In the name of Allah she is willing to accept contradictions from the scriptures.
cs says
It is a pain to listen to this lady, oh boy she is just tiresome. Nonie just destroys her, deservedly.
Jack Diamond says
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” … (Sahih al-Bukhari 5.369, cf. the article on Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf for further details)
This is Muhammad condoning deception to commit murder. Saba might reply this falls under the excuse of deception in “war” which begs the question, what is not war in the relation of Muslims to non-Muslims? Is anyone who “insults” Muhammad a target of war?
Allah is also, clearly, called “the best of deceivers” as Nonie explains the translation–the Quran calls Allah a “makr”, in fact the best makr there is: “But they (the Jews) were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers (Wamakaroo wamakara Allahu waAllahu khayru al-makireena)!” S. 3:54; cf. 8:30 further confirmed in Ibn Ishaq: “Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him ‘to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.’ i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah)
There is a problem with any debate or discussion with Muslims if you have to suspect they are not arguing in good faith or being open and honest in what they say that makes it a waste of time.
Taqiyya is just another word for Muslims “guarding” themselves from the enemy: non-Muslims. It permits Muslims to even take false oaths: “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts” (2:225). “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths” (5:89). False oaths, lying if it will serve the greater good of Muslims…”anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except under compulsion…”(16:106) “let not believers take unbelievers for friends…except by way of precaution that ye may guard yourself from them” (3:28). This is what allows “we smile in their faces while cursing them in our hearts.”
As for the charge some make that taqiyya is just a shi’a doctrine, the same texts and teachings in Sunni Islam go by the name of muda’rat (deception). Who can this deception by applied to? Sunni scholars list 10 categories of people, including “kaffir” (non-Muslims).
nacazo says
A poet writing satyrical verses against Mohamed is war????? The poet “hurt” Mohamed??? We have to call a spade a spade. Mohamed had a fragile ego if some poem caused so much hurt that he sent an assasin to kill the poet.
Diana says
The verses were satirical against Muhammad and satyrical against his aunt-in-law.
And they mentioned that murdering 66 people just because you want to steal their possessions is wrong.
G179 says
At 10:16, Saba is claiming to quote Quran 16:105:
“Whoever fabricates falsehhod, it is they who are the liars”.
The actual verse is (Sahih international):
“They only invent falsehood who do not believe in the verses of Allah , and it is those who are the liars”.
Saba is misrepresenting the Quran and hides its actual content.
dumbledoresarmy says
Nice catch, mate.
Worth bearing in mind also, whenever Muslims use terms like ‘truth’, ‘falsehood’, ‘lies’, etc, that in Islamspeak “truth” = “Islam” (or ‘whatever-is-in-conformity-with-Islamic-teaching/sunnah of Mohammed) and “falsehood” = “not-Islam”.
RonaldB says
May I say that in the past few years, Jamie Glazov has gotten to be incomparably more expressive and compelling in his presentations than when he began making his broadcasts?
As far as Saba Ahmed, she apparently calls herself a Republican. It is the purest of folly to look to the establishments of either political party for defense against Islam or even high levels of immigration. It is more than obvious that Saba is lying, stupid, or thoroughly brainwashed to accept contradictions in logic when it involves Islam. The really significant feature is that when clearly confronted with the lies and contradictions she presents, she simply hunkers down and repeats herself.
I’ll repeat myself for emphasis: brainwashed Muslims like Saba Ahmed are not susceptible to logic or facts. It is useless to argue with them for the purpose of getting them to act reasonably. There are reasons for debating with them: 1) any observer can see her stupidity and lying, and can see the dangers of Islamic belief; 2) even debating a brainwashed person is always valuable to challenge your own logic: as free people, we always challenge ourselves to get closer to the truth.
The primary lesson is that Muslims cannot be accommodated; they cannot be satisfied with concessions; they cannot be bought off. A Muslim like Saba Ahmed will never admit that any concession short of total capitulation is satisfactory. Therefore, we have to accept that it is we who decide how far Muslims are allowed to go; not Muslims. Muslims will scream discrimination and oppression regardless.
Jack Diamond says
I’m speaking more in terms of one on one dialogue or debate with a Muslim as being a waste of time, other than for practicing arguing with a liar or airhead. This gets old fast. As you say, (paraphrasing) it’s not about arguing with them it is about setting down the law for them.
As to the benefit of debate for a third party observer or audience, yes it has value if it is a savvy knowledgable opponent of the Muslim. Not so much when it is a dunce commentator on Fox News or CNN and taqiyya is disseminated and goes unrefuted because everyone does not see, unless it is made clear to them, that the person is lying or concealing. And they are not all as feeble in speaking as Saba, there are plenty of slippery Tariq Ramadans (or even slimy George Galloway-apologists) who can talk rings around all but the most adroit and informed.
It’s not about arguing with them, it’s about setting down the law for them.
Angemon says
If Saba fails as islamic apologist to the point she can’t earn her keep, she should try a career as stand up comedian – I chuckled when she spoke about islam mandating muslims to tell the truth and the lack of contradictions in the quran. As for her claim that the hadith quoted by Jamie is weak, bulls*** – it’s Sahih Muslim, it’s corroborated, it’s as strong as they get (also, great jab by Jamie – he’s always teaching muslims about islamic teachings 😀 . Well played, sir, well played).
nacazo says
This smells like taqqiya:
She didn’t know the hadith about Mohamed punching his wife, ok possible. But then she says that the clerics she consulted told her it was a weak hadith? So she knew about the hadith about Mohamed punching his wife? Either she lies about not knowing the hadith or she made an excuse on the fly. Either way she’s dishonest.
nacazo says
This smells like taqqiyya:
She didn’t know the hadith about Mohamed punching his wife? ok possible. Then she says the clerics she consulted told her it was a weak hadith? Then she knew about the hadith saying Mohamed punching his wife. Either she lied about not knowing the hadith or she made up an excuse on the fly. Either way she’s being dishonest.
Jack Diamond says
So a “husband trying to make up with his wife” is allowed to lie? Allah thinks of everything.
Here is Saba in 2014 in The Guardian: “I became Republican because I felt that my Islamic values – pro-life, pro-traditional family, pro-business, pro-trade – aligned best with the Republican party platform.”
“I was born and raised as a Muslimah and, though I don’t consider myself an Islamic scholar or expert by any means, I do know that my faith teaches peace, justice and humanity.
“Islam comes from the word salaam, which means peace {JD-wrong, it comes from the word meaning submission} ,and my community can – and must – use the peaceful teachings of Islam to end radical terrorism. {well?} We are taught to deal kindly and justly with non-Muslims (60:8), that killing one innocent human being is like killing all of humanity (5:32), and that God can grant love and friendship between us and those who hold themselves out as our enemies (60:7) – teachings that are not so different from those learned by Christians.”
Proving she is no Islamic scholar or expert by any means…..” {JD-Tasfir Ibn Kathir on 60:7 (And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) means, Allah forgives the disbelief of the disbelievers if they repent from it, returned to their Lord and surrendered to Him in Islam.” Love and friendship if you become a Muslim. Who you foolin’, Saba?}
“Jesus, too, exhorted his followers to love their enemies – which sometimes seems to have been forgotten in conservative policy discussions, especially when it comes to people of my faith.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/04/muslim-republican-attacked-heritage
Where oh where in the Qur’an are Muslims to love their enemies? How did Saba miss all the hate and enmity Muslims are to have for the kaffir, their enemies, and that to love them or take them for friends is to be one of them and an apostate worthy of execution? Is 5:51 in the Qur’an Saba? Has it been abrogated? It’s the last freaking sura. Yes, Christians are to love their enemies. Muslims are to hate their (and Allah’s) enemies. See the difference? Say hi to Grover Norquist. Saba says she has read Reliance of the Traveler. If so she cannot play innocent and naive with us, she is something more than a broken clock. Nonie nails her on her failure to defend the women raped and enslaved and oppressed in the name of Islam {what do you expect, her to acknowledge that?} …& “the world is tired of Islam”{yes!} and “the day we allow Sharia Islam in America is the day we invite an Arab Spring” –perfect quotes to end this one-sided debate.
RonaldB says
Hi Jack. Good comment.
I used to be very familiar with Grover Norquist. His sock puppet buddy, Sohil Khan, also a Republican power, had a run-in with Robert Spencer a few years ago, and naturally tried to lie about Islam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRRFCe5POj0
I sometimes think the Muslim apologists flip a coin: “heads! I go Republican. You go Democrat.” “Tails: I go Democrat.”
It is a fabrication that Islam has any common ground with the principles of either major political party, but a person like Grover Norquist will self-identify with one or another party to gain a platform for advancing Islam, which is his real agenda. Who the hell cares how high the tax rate is, if the country is filling up with unvetted Muslims sympathetic to sharia law, Muslim group politics, and acts of terrorism to destabilize society?
The Republican Party may actually be more infiltrated by Muslim Brotherhood agents and Islamists than the Democrats.
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/the-muslim-brotherhood-in-america/
Both political parties are centered around money and fund-raising, which is what gives Grover Norquist such power in the Republican Party. The Clintons actually make no secret of their huge incomes from consulting and speaking to Middle Eastern governments and agencies.
Jack Diamond says
As the previous generation, Republican and Democrat, clamored for the financial rewards of currying the favor of the Arab or Saudi Lobby, ARAMCO to the BCCI. Democrat operatives like Clark Clifford and Fred Dutton; Colin Powell,tennis partner of Prince Bandar– who gave Powell’s wife a brand new Jaguar as a token of affection. Carter, Bush, Clinton and their post-President libraries and speaking fees…typical example, CIA chief in Saudi, Raymond Close in the 70s, retires and goes into business with two Saudi businessmen, one from Saudi intelligence, then is a “fellow” at Yale writing pieces against Israel and promoting our ally– Saudi Arabia. Edward Abington from the State Dept, consul general in Jerusalem in the 90s, becomes a paid consultant for the PLO (and a ghost writer for Arafat); then for Abbas, and he is witness for the defense in the Holy Land Foundation trial. The best and brightest. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/09/fitzgerald-stop-the-saudi-lobby
But then politics is compromise, so they say….
RCCA says
Correction to Saba: Judaism is concerned with eternal truth and the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. G-d is the creator of all, but the relationship between the Creator and all others is not the concern of the Jewish people or the Jewish religion. I can’t speak for Christianity. Perhaps Mohammed got the idea from Christianity that his religion should take responsibility for the whole world.
nacazo says
Does Saba agree that sharia is based in what Mohamed did and not based on what Saba likes? So if Mohamed hit his wife, then sharia will permit husbands to beat his wife. If Saba believes sharia is whatever she wants it to be, then it’s a different story.
Thomas says
Saba Ahmed is a federal employee.
Question: are any o Saba’s activities in violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act?
Lobbying Restrictions
The principal statutory restriction that limits the activities of federal personnel in their relations with Congress is Title 18 Sec 1913 of the United States Code, originally passed in 1919, and commonly known as the Anti-Lobbying Act. The Act places certain restrictions and limitations on career federal officials lobbying Congress, especially with respect to engaging in certain types of grass roots activities aimed at influencing pending legislation.
Title 18 Sec 1913 was originally codified as a criminal statute and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The Anti-Lobbying Act underwent major revisions in 2002 that broadened but also clarified the restrictions on lobbying activities by federal personnel. In addition, the 2002 amendments removed the criminal penalties and substituted civil penalties, with fines that range from $10,000 to $100,000 dollars for each individual violation of the law which, like the proposed changes in the Hatch Act, make it more likely that federal personnel may be punished for violations of the Anti-Lobbying Act.
In addition to Title 18 Sec 1913, there are additional areas of restrictions on lobbying Congress by federal personnel, as well as non-federal personnel who work for organizations that receive federal funds. First, Congress almost always includes riders to the annual appropriations bills that prohibit career federal personnel from engaging in certain types of lobbying activities, and which generally apply as well to non-federal entities that receive federal appropriated funds.
Second, Title 31 Sec 1352 of the United States Code, commonly referred to as the Byrd Amendment to the Federal Acquisitions Regulations (FAR), places lobbying restrictions on organizations that receive federal grants and federal contractors. These prohibit the use of federal funds for lobbying purposes, but generally allow those organizations to lobby provided they use non-federal funds.
Third, OMB Circular A-122 prohibits non-profit organizations from using federal funds for certain types of lobbying activities.
Finally, individual departments and agencies all maintain their own rules and restrictions on lobbying activities, as well as guidance on what is permitted. These restrictions may well be narrower and stricter than any of the existing statutes and regulations, and it’s incumbent upon individual personnel to learn and follow their own agency rules and guidelines. To make matters even more complicated, jurisdiction over alleged violations of both the Hatch Act and the Anti-Lobbying Act are frequently confusing and overlapping, and may involve the Office of Special Counsel, the Justice Department, OMB, or the Inspector General and/or ethics office of the department or agency.
http://gai.georgetown.edu/changes-to-both-hatch-act-and-anti-lobbying-act-you-should-be-aware-of/
RonaldB says
Interesting compilation.
This is her vita, which is surprising for someone so slow, dull, and impervious to logic:
“Saba Ahmed is a Pakistani-American Muslimah currently pursuing her Patent Attorney career at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. She recently completed her LLM in Law and Government at American University Washington School of Law and obtained her Juris Doctorate from Lewis & Clark Law School, MBA from University of Portland and Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering and Physics from Portland State University in Oregon. She has worked at top law firms, corporations and government for several years in various engineering, management and legal positions. Saba recently moved to Washington DC from Oregon and is living her dream life defending Islam in Conservative Republican business, legal and media circles.”
http://www.sabaahmed.com/
I’m not sure from her descriptions if she represents Muslim Republicans to the government, or represents Muslims to the Republicans.
I guess her modus operandi is to shoe-horn Islam to fit so-called conservative principles, the same as she shoe-horns Islam to fit a peaceful, tolerant religion. It’s a funny thing that as a trained lawyer, she seems totally unfamiliar with the concept of abrogation or ijma (exposition of Islamic law through scholarly consensus). One would conclude she’s either lying or stupid…and last I checked, you have to have a certain intelligence to pass a bar exam.
Thomas says
Saba Ahmed’s website identifies her as a “Islamic Lobbyist.”
Wikipedia defines lobbying as:
Lobbying (also lobby) is the act of attempting to influence decisions made by officials in a government, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. Lobbying is done by many types of people, associations and organized groups, including individuals in the private sector, corporations, fellow legislators or government officials, or advocacy groups (interest groups).
Her actions sure appear to be attempting to influence government officials.
Jack Diamond says
Maybe she got through college on a football scholarship.
Or maybe trying to defend Islam leaves her at a loss for words. Patently.
RonaldB says
“Or maybe trying to defend Islam leaves her at a loss for words. Patently.”
Haha. Good joke.
somehistory says
The moslem woman begins by saying that islam commands telling the truth…*there is no room for lying in islam.” She states that it is “essential” to tell the truth.
However, on a previous video with Mr. Glazov, she said she *worked for the government.*
She is a lobbyist…with a moslem group calling itself, in part, *republican*.
This is not a part of the government. This is a group that is trying to influence Republicans, and esp those running for president.
She does not work for the government, but lobbies on behalf of islam and moslems in the U.S.in order to influence policy and law, trying to cause more favorable laws toward the goals of moslems.
When she said she worked for the government, that was not true.
As much of what she said previously, and what she said this time. is not true.
Like many words moslems use…peace, justice, innocent,…that have a different meaning than we would find in Websters or Oxford dictionaries, different than the meanings that come to mind, they obviously have a different meaning for *truth* and for *lying.*
She is unwilling to listen to those who know more than she does about islam.
Susan says
Why didn’t anyone mention abrogation? When Saba says there is no contradiction, she is lying! The FACT that there is contradiction is addressed in Islam. The prophet said that when one verse condradicts another the latter verse is to be considered valid. The Medina verses abrogate the Meccan verses. The Medina verses are, of course the ones that condone violence, lying, torture, rape slavery….. All those lovely things that make Islam so fun.
RonaldB says
Abrogation. There’s an interesting spin on abrogation. Sayyid Qutb, Muslim Brotherhood visionary, wrote a book called “Milestones”, in which he used the different commands for Muslim behavior as a roadpath for the progressive Muslim takeover of any society they occupied. So, the commands to be tolerant applied when Muslims were weak, the commands for only defensive violence applied when Muslims had a moderate presence, and so forth.
The point is that the successive abrogations were not simply throwaway commands, but part of a coherent plan for the triumph of Islam.
You can read about it in more detail in the book “Catastrophic Failure” by Steven Coughlin:
http://www.amazon.com/Catastrophic-Failure-Blindfolding-America-Jihad/dp/1511617500/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1444236311&sr=8-1&keywords=catastrophic+failure
nacazo says
quran says there are no contradictions in the quran but then you find contradictions all over the place and then abrogation comes to the rescue saying: if there is contradiction the latter verse supercedes the earlier contradictory verse.
Therefore, in the mind of the deluded (muslims), there is no contradiction.
But the contradictions are still there.
Mirren10 says
Here’s Brigitte Gabriel slapping down this malevolent and stupid bint.
nacazo says
When Nonie says “idolaters” it sounds to me like “adulterers”.
Amy says
Saba was having trouble with her deception…..not very good at it
RG says
Saba…. Based on the way she speaks English, she’s most likely an American-born convert or she’s a second generation American muslim. Her profile is so typical…. Totally illiterate about her own islamic belief system but completely adamant about defending it!!! “Some people are like cement, all mixed up and set like stone.”
nacazo says
At 20:50, check a pathetic attempt by Saba to play the victim card. And what was that potential lack of “respect” by Nonie? Nonie said that she left islam…
Talk about a weak ideology which feels threatened by just people leaving it.
lothos says
an audience member asks a question of brigitte gabriel…needless to say, brigitte answers directly…
…the audience member? …saba ahmed… ;0)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s
lothos says
…apologies…duplicate post…Mirren10 losted a lonk to the same vid yesterday… :0)
abraham habash says
Many Muslim apologists try to defend the Quran by quoting the Quran. They do not seem to see the illogic of the situation.This is equivalent to absolving a thief of his crime by taking his testimony as an irrefutable evidence.
Bayah says
and so lying is NOT okay , unless it’s for the benefit of jihad, which means she lied when she said that there was no lying.
Charles says
Exactly. I said it in my comment, but for some reason it hasn’t shown up yet, infidels aren’t granted the rights laid down by muhammad. People can talk about how many times merciful and compassionate show up in the quran but they fail to mention that the mercy and compassion are only shown to those who follow muhammad’s words without question
Charles says
I’m 1:36 in and the muslim woman is talking about how being “honest” and not lying is a big part of islam. It drives me crazy when people say that kind of crap or talk about how merciful and peaceful islam is. When islam mentions peace, mercy, truthfulness and all that other nonsense it’s talking about other muslims. Infidels are not protected by muhammad’s words, only true believers of islam are granted that luxury. The word of muhammad are very clear as to what he thinks of non-believers. They can speak their half truths but anyone who knows even the slightest thing about islam knows the truth.