Sharif Gabir and the Dunning Kruger effect, ISIS and Islam Part-3 Update : 28/3/2017

(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)
Note: duo to work and several personal obligations i have decided few weeks ago to stop posting in this blog for the time being, i do plan on a comeback in the future with possible reply to Martin Taverille, the owner of the blog Quranspotlight, as i plan in to refute his post regarding the sun sitting in a murky water allegation.

Note: For some reason Blogger keeps messing up my footnotes format, please ignore format errors and if you find any extra space between letters try reducing it

This is my fault for not making a post in a long time, this is duo to the fact that not only Islam is not my specialty so I don’t have that empty time to make posts and articles, but also I’m busy with work and training

I do admit that I can be lazy at some points

With this firmed apology let’s begin

@4:00

Sharif start with a screenshot and explain his prior statements regarding slavery in Islamic world, as he state that 1952 was the latest abolishment of slavery in the Muslim world, now I have no idea what he is aiming at here, he is not making any argument at all, argument combust of premises that is subsequent by a following conclusion, and I don’t see any conclusion here, all I can see is “Islam permitted slavery until 1952” Ok, your point? There could be various angles here, if he is trying to say that Islamic countries promoted slavery therefore they are immoral then he is a hypocrite, because the Very country he so gloriously defended (Israel) is guilty of the same issue, in fact many middle eastern countries are performing better than Israel in slavery market, in an article cited by The Times of Israel magazine:

“Israel has as many as 8,500 slaves, according to a new comprehensive study of worldwide slavery. Israel placed 111 out of 162 slave-holding countries in the Global Slavery Index 2013, recently published by the Australian Walk Free Foundation. Mauritania was found to have the most serious slavery problem”[1]

Continuing the theme

“According to the study, the first-ever country-by-country survey of its kind, Israel has 7,700 to 8,500 slaves. Still, Israel ranked well relative to the lower standards in the Middle East, though Lebanon, Tunisia, and Egypt scored better than the Jewish state.”[2]

Slavery does exist in Israel, this is a fact, if you are stating that countries with moral grounds like Israel doesn’t have slavery or slave market or never practiced it then your point is mooted

However another possible meaning to why Sharif cited these sources is probably he is trying to say that Islam promote slavery, but then again this is not an argument duo to the fact that it doesn’t have a conclusion that follow it’s premises and can be easily ignored, but then again using your own logic every society in the world promoted slavery at some point, so what is your point again?

A third possible meaning is that he is citing these sources to claim that Muslims are immoral because they promoted slavery, then again so as other societies have done this, also other Muslims don’t promote slavery, so what about them?

Sharif comment and citation of these three countries in relations to slavery are so vague and ambiguous there is no clear meaning behind them

@4:16 Sharif brings the argument of beheadings and cutting the hands of thief, his statement (not argument) is that Muslim countries promote lashing beheading and cutting the hands of thief, he seems to make this statement as a response to a Muslim claim that cutting the hand of thief and beheadings and lashing done by extremists does not represent Islam, but Sharif state “this is in the heart of your religion” Ok, so again what is the point? There are no arguments presented here duo to the lack of any conclusion, best of what I can make out of this is that what he is saying is beheadings and cutting the hands of thief are so brutal and gruesome it’s immoral

But how? Let’s compare it to your glorious west, is it moral to drop bombs of people and destroy the houses, demolishing their homes bombing them to millions of pieces is less brutal than just cutting someone head of? How can you compare the brutality and the fatality of modern military might to a mere sward cutting someone head of? Again where is the argument here? What are you insinuating? 

Later he also cite the punishment for apostasy, again no argument presented

Argument are consist of 2 parts, premises and a conclusion that follow the premises, so where is his conclusion, is he saying apostasy is so immoral since Muslims practice it? But we also have incidence of apostasy in Islamic countries that are though in their constitution yet are not practiced

Take Iraqi Constitution for example, as it also promote freedom of belief and thought[3], so my question here using his own logic, why is it for example the Iraqi constitution promote freedom of thought yet apostasy is punishable in it?

@4:43-5:06 now we head to one of his major blunders, he cite several scholars of Islamic extremist groups, making up a statement that the leaders of these terrorist groups are scholars of religion

I’ll be it this is a good response to Muslims who might make such assumptions that ISIS leaders aren’t well educated, however giving the Muslims the benefit of doubt, if Sharif is saying that moderate Muslims doesn’t have legitimate scholars who can counter the extremists then I can cite over 127 scholars with equal to even larger majors than those scholars of these terrorist organization[4]

Now here comes even a more shocking statement @5:20 he commits generalization fallacy and I will quote you directly what he said and translate it “81% of Muslims agree that ISIS is ok” Wait What? How? Are you telling me that over 1.3 billion people think ISIS is Ok? Where are the polls? Why did you just show a screenshot of this article without citing the polls directly?

This poll was not representative of 1.3 billion Muslims, this poll was representative of the viewers of Al-Jazeera, basically Al-Jazeera conducted a poll (Of its viewers) and asked them regarding their views on ISIS, this is astonishingly low level of research by those who mirrored the article and by Sharif himself, even lower than the masked Arab, and in fact the total number of voters who voted positively for ISIS is 46060[5]

I’m sorry but 46060 does not equal 1.3 billion people, how can his audience be so idiotic to let this slip by, even the title itself expose this idiocy

His next poll is another piece of research laziness, as he shows a poll (with no sources) that 91% of Saudis think ISIS represent Islamic values, forgetting the fact that we have no source for the poll studies, 92% of Saudis don’t reprint Muslims at all

Later he cites an article titled “51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.” when I took a look at the website I chuckled at the fact that it was Jihad watch, a website owned by a megalomaniac lunatic called Robert spencer, but to give him a shoot I decided to read quickly through the article hoping I can grab their sources, spencer give us the original source from Pamela Gellar, another megalomaniac lunatic, but this time her source is cited under the quotation as a link, the original link give direct citation to a website known as investors politics, a non-academic website, again I decided to have a quick look hoping I can find a link or a source I can verify, but all that I saw was nothing but anecdotal claims with no evidence, no link, no citation to back them up the original quote that incinerated this article is this

“Tapper doesn't get out much. If he did, chances are he'd run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having "the choice of being governed according to Sharia," or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they're more loyal to Islam than America.”[6]

Now let’s give Sharif the benefit of doubt, and let’s say this “survey” is real and accurate, my question is so what? Supporting sharia law by default Doesn’t make you extremist in anyway shape or form at all, I myself support sharia law and prefer it over western U.S secular law, yet I don’t support what ISIS does, Sharia Law has never been monolithic in its interpretation, those who say so simply are ignorant.

@5:31 he cites a figure of 62% Muslims in Canada supporting sharia law yet again no argument is presented

Argument= premises + following conclusion

Yet here we don’t see any conclusion to his citation, although I can again ignore it since it’s not an argument I will try again to formulate an argument on his behalf

We can only formulate 2 arguments here

1-62% of Muslims in Canada support sharia, therefore, they prefer sharia over regular law

2-62% of Muslims in Canada support sharia, therefore, they are considered radicals

Problems with argument #1 are that this again is a nonsequitur, Muslims at Canada don’t represent Muslims around the world at all, another problem with this argument that it’s so vague and amigos we can’t formulate meanings behind it, so what if they prefer it over Canadian law? What is the conciseness?

Problems with argument #2 this is yet again a non sequitur, supporting sharia law doesn’t make you by default radical duo to the vast large number of interpretations you can apply to sharia law, you can make it either radical or moderate, sharia law simply by orthodox interpretation of Islam meaning following the Quran and Sunnah law, and that is it, both Quran and Sunnah require an interpretation applied, and subsequently it’s applied to sharia

What makes it even more ridiculous is that his source is Yet again Jihad Watch, which is as I explained a non-academic source, however again to do the research on his behalf I took the time to read through this article in a bit and found these quotations

““The most radical political views tended to be expressed by relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences, while devout Muslims were sometimes the most articulate advocates for Canada and democracy.” According to the Ottawa based think tank, only a small minority of Muslim newcomers to Canada reject Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Iranian regime.

The survey, which was released Tuesday, found 62% wanted some form of Sharia law in Canada, 15% of them saying it should be mandatory for all Muslims.

The report also states support for extremism is just as high among Muslims born in Canada, or other Western countries, as it is among those hailing from oppressive dictatorships.””

Now these are the core foundation of the article, yet we don’t see any reference at all to the so called “survey”, I googled every quote and got other right wing websites quoting it, I opened several of them to see a direct link to the survey I could not find the survey link at all, almost all websites quotes the same text starting from this

“OTTAWA - A newly released survey suggests a large number of Muslims living in Canada will not disown Al-Qaida.

The study, conducted by the MacDonald Laurier Institute, found 65% of Muslims questioned said they would “repudiate absolutely” the terrorist organization, while 35% would not do so.”

There are several problems here

1-What Ottawa survey? What date? What link? What organization? What university? What source?

2-“ MacDonald Laurier Institute” I looked up this institution, turned out that this think tank is a right wing organization, now when I traced the main website of the institution in an attempt to see their studies, I looked up the studies they are conducting and searched for keywords like 62% Muslims, or even the keyword “Muslims” itself, I couldn’t find a single source or reference to alleged study at all, I even used keywords like “sharia” to narrow down the results, got few matches then I opened all the links, spoiler alert the study yet again doesn’t exist, yes there were references there and there to sharia law and support for it, but the figure 62% Muslims supporting terrorist organizations and sharia law doesn’t exist, in fact what makes  this so ironic is that there are several links and studies that suggest Muslims condemnation of terrorism in that right wing think tank, I was able to grab few

MUSLIM CLERIC CONDEMNS TERRORISM IN THE NAME OF ISLAM

Source
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/muslim-cleric-condemns-terrorism-in-the-name-of-islam/

I was also able to grab a PDF titled “What Do Muslim Canadians Want? The Clash of Interpretations and Opinion Research by Christian Leuprecht and Conrad Winn”

The summary is made in this article

MUCH GOOD NEWS AND SOME WORRYING RESULTS IN NEW STUDY OF MUSLIM PUBLIC OPINION IN CANADA
source
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/

Never the less I will however cite a couple of quotes from the study

“Sharia Law and Islamic Government

Survey respondents were asked questions involving two conventional Islamist litmus tests—whether a [pan-Islamic] Caliphate27 should replace existing governments and, separately, whether Sharia law should be introduced as an option or obligation for Muslims.

Respondents were divided on each of the two questions, with resistance to the establishment of a Caliphate being stronger than resistance to the introduction of Sharia law, as shown in Tables 3a and b. The best evidence from these two tables in support of the assimilationist paradigm is that strong opposition to a Caliphate outnumbers strong support for it by ten to one. Nonetheless, only 39% of respondents disagreed strongly with the idea of introducing a Caliphate. Strong opposition rises to 50% among non-observant Muslims while falling to 25% among Muslims who attend Islamic study groups at least once a month.

Opinion about Sharia law is diverse, with a plurality favoring Sharia as an option available to Muslims dealing with family-law issues. Opposition to any space for Sharia is strongest among non-observant Muslims (40%) and immigrants from Iran (44%) while weakest among Arabs (15%) and regular mosque attendees (15%). Among nonobservant Muslims, 8% favor requiring Muslims to be ruled by Sharia courts on family or other legal issues. This triples to 22% among those attending Islamic study groups.”

That’s only 8% sharia among 50% who agree with a caliphate

Now what about Terrorism?

“Survey respondents were asked to score their degree of approval or disapproval of four Muslim extremist groups, two non-Muslim groups, and the Iranian regime, as shown in Table 4.

The most encouraging finding is the pervasive repudiation of Al Qaeda. The late Osama bin Laden’s organization is fully rejected by 65% (score of 1), supported fully by 1% (score of 7), and supported partially or tolerated by the remaining 34%. By contrast, Canadian Muslims are relatively approving of the Muslim Brotherhood fully rejected by only 13%. Founded in Egypt in 1928, it is dedicated to creating an Islamic civilization inspired by the caliphates of the 7th and 8th centuries that would subjugate women and subordinate non-believers. The intellectual inspiration for Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other newer militant or terrorist organizations, the Brotherhood has been implicated in providing logistic support and money laundering on their behalf.[7]”

In the meantime, here is another article by MLI

HERE ARE THE MODERATE MUSLIMS; WHERE ARE YOU? RAHEEL RAZA IN THE CLARION PROJECT

Source

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/here-are-the-moderate-muslims-where-are-you-raheel-raza-in-the-clarion-project/

I was finally through some research to find a close link to the 62% support for sharia law study in that website

MLI STUDY ON THE OPINIONS AND VALUES OF CANADIAN MUSLIMS MAKES WAVES

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/mli-study-on-the-opinions-and-values-of-canadian-muslims-makes-waves/

“On November 3rd, The Barrie Examiner wrote a piece on the study focusing on the finding that 62% of Muslims living in this country want some form of Sharia law here.”

However a close look at the source it turned out that it was Not MLI but rather it’s The Barrie Examiner

A close look at the website the article is relatively short but I couldn’t see any link at all, this again can be tracked back the main article titled “What Do Muslim Canadians Want? The Clash of Interpretations and Opinion Research by Christian Leuprecht and Conrad Winn” that I shared few moments ago

This number appear only ones in the study, but there is no link leading to it at all, among what the study shows is “The 3 percent support of Al-Qaeda points to the hard-core Islamist element in Canada”

Latet the study makes the following shocking conclusion

“When it comes to extremist views, Leuprecht and Winn acknowledge their surprise:

“We expected religious participants in the focus groups to be more radical in their views. In contradistinction, the most radical political views tended to be expressed by relatively secular people, often equipped with higher education in the social sciences, while devout Muslims were sometimes the most articulate advocates for Canada and democracy.””[8]

Which shows that support to sharia law doesn’t equal support for extremist views

However further reading clear up the issue more

“The Leuprecht-Winn study reveals a number of problematic attitudes, from desire for Sharia to support for Al-Qaeda, but it also establishes that Canada has the most moderate, diverse, and open Muslim population in the West. Not only is this an advantage to build on but it suggests a potential role for moderate Canadian Muslims to take their message and perhaps their institutions to other Western countries”[9]

@05:35 However here and my goodness does Sharif make one astonishing error, either he can’t read properly or he is being deliberately dishonest, he state and I quote “49.9% of MUSLIMS Support Osama Bin Laden” either his fans are outmost stupid for not pointing out this error or he is playing with them, the Very screenshot he shared state the following

3 problems here

1-his source, it’s none other than wikiislam, the ridiculous online source for Islam that Anyone can edit.

2-he strawmanned his own source: his sources state the following “An Al-Jazeera Arabic poll involving 41260 participants in September 2006 found that a huge 49.9% of Arab Muslims support him”

As we can see, this is related to Arabs Only Not muslims

3- This study involves only 41260 participants, as I Already dealt with this earlier in this article

@05:40 he state that 84% of Muslims in Egypt support death penalty for apostasy, about this time he cites a good source such as pew center for research, however here is 2 problems, the numbers of countries listed here is 7 countries, while there are well over 50+ Muslim countries out there, he even cited one county (his own) out of them, this in no way representative of Muslims around the world, and a generalization fallacy

But the second problem is that this study is outdated as it was published in 2010

“Seven of the 50 countries (14%) in the Asia-Pacific region also had apostasy laws. For instance, in the Maldives, all citizens are required to be Muslim, and those who convert to another faith may lose their citizenship. In sub-Saharan Africa, just four of the 48 countries (8%) have laws prohibiting apostasy. There were no laws against apostasy in any countries in Europe or the Americas in 2014.”[10]

“The modest declines in countries with high restrictions or hostilities took place despite a marked increase in the number of countries that experienced religion-related terrorist activities, including acts carried out by such groups as Boko Haram, al-Qaida and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL). Of the nearly 200 countries and territories included in the study, 82 (41%) had religion”[11]

“Several factors contributed to the overall decline in government restrictions on religion. For instance, there was a decrease in the number of countries where some level of the government – national, provincial or local – interfered with worship practices.”[12]

“The new study looks at the prevalence of restrictions and hostilities by region and by country. The Middle East and North Africa region continued to have the highest median level of government restrictions on religion, although the region’s score on the GRI dropped slightly from 2013 to 2014.”[13]

Albeit the numbers are high as stated, but as shown the studies are outdated and numbers are in decline

@06:34 Sharif Gabir cites a news article that state Al-azhar university condoned cannibalism by teaching people that they can eat human flesh by cutting women and kids, not only did he straw manned the article by saying “in al azhar and all Saudi Arabian universities teach kids how to cut heads off” nowhere does the article make such claim of Saudi Arabia, however they did provide the source for cannibalism claim

I will show later what the actual source say vs what Sharif said, even the cannibalism instruction proceeded by the article cited by Sharif gabir doesn’t match what he said

Now as for the source, the source is found in الإقناع فى حل ألفاظ أبى شجاع Al-ikna’ fi Hal Al-Alfath by Abi Shuja’ page255-256 but I couldn’t find anywhere in nether two volumes of the book the original source, I was able to find contextual link[14] to the book giving me the source being in volume 2 page 237 but again couldn’t find it there

I searched every possible source and page number and I couldn’t find it, but I need to check if the scholars of al azhar agreed with such accusation, turns out that the scholars of al azhar spoke about it online I was able to find the quotation of the representative of al azhar university sheikh abdul tawab qutub regarding this allegation

“فى المقابل، أكد الشيخ عبدالتواب قطب، وكيل الأزهر، لـ «الوطن»، أن «هذا الكلام لا أساس له من الصحة وفُهم بشكل خاطئ، وشيخ الأزهر طالب بإعادة النظر فى المناهج، لتُناسب الظروف الراهنة فى مختلف مراحل التعليم، والأزهر بصدد ثورة فى كافة المناهج»”[15]

Translation:

The representative of al-azhar university sheikh abdul tawab Qutub made sure by the following statement to elwatan news outlet “this allegation has no credibility or authenticity and was understood wrongly and the shikh of al-azhar asked to revalue and investigate the courses to be appropriate with current status of education in all forms of it”

So apparently according to alazhar official representative, this claim has been widely fabricated, so now we already have an issue of authenticity, given the fact that I looked at both volumes and couldn’t find it

Now let us evaluate the statement provided by the website cited by Sharif gabri

However there is a word we need to evaluate first before we proceed, the word is مضطر which means forced to let us now use the very book cited by the website and the book that sparked the controversy, now as I was reading through volume 2 in chapter food and what is legislated to eat I came across the following sentence

“(و يحل للمضطر) اي يجب عليه اذا خاف على نفسه (في) حال (المخمصة) بيمين المفتوحتين بينهما خاء معجمة و بعدها صاد : اي المجاعة –موتا او مرضا مخوفا.....و لم يجد حلالا يأكله (ان يأكل من الميتة المحرمة) عليه قبل اضطراره لان تاركه ساع في هلاك نفسه و كما يجب دفع الهلاك بأكل الحلال و قد قال تعالى : (و لا تقتلو انفسكم)"[16]

Translation:

Meaning: And it’s appropriate if he was forced to eat I.e. if he was in state of extreme hunger, famine, or extreme illness that he has to eat save his life…..and he didn’t find anything Halal to eat (eating from non halal dead meat) before he was forced to because if he didn’t he would die as every Muslim should not fall into death by eating halal as god said {and don’t kill yourselves}

Which is ironic saying above that a Muslim shouldn’t allow death to consume him which flies in the face of suicide bombing

So as we can see, eating non halal or controversial meat (including human meat) should only be allowed if one life is in danger to save himself

NOTE: after continuing in reading the volume I was able to find the controversial quotation on page 562

So we need to take this word اضطر as foundation for our investigation because later on we will encounter this word when we look at the quotation from the book (the alleged quotation) that caused this controversy

The controversial quote goes as following

“للمضطر أكل آدمى ميت إذا لم يجد ميتة غيره... واستثنى من ذلك ما إذا كان الميت نبيًا فإنه لا يجوز الأكل منه جزمًا... أما إذا كان الميت مسلمًا والمضطر كافرًا فإنه لا يجوز الأكل منه لشرف الإسلام، وحيث جوزنا أكل ميتة الآدمى لا يجوز طبخها، ولا شيها، لما فى ذلك من هتك حرمته، ويتخير فى غيره بين أكله نيئًا وغيره”[17]

Translation:

And for the (Forced) one he can eat the flesh of human meat if he didn’t find any other source, and the exception of that flesh was the flesh of a prophet because he is not allowed to eat it period, but if the dead one was a Muslim and the forced one was kafir then he is not allowed to eat the flesh because Muslim flesh is more honored, and we made it legislated to eat human flesh but not to cock it for how it’s disrespectful to the dead one, he should eat it uncooked and so on”

So as we can see, the main premise here is that you are only allowed to eat it if you were forced to for your own survival

Now let’s imagine this scenario, say you are trapped in the middle of a desert, and you have a dead man in front of you, you are starving to death you have no water no food no mean of feast and nourishment, but a dead man meat in front of you as your only mean of survival? Will you take the chance to eat it to save yourself from death?

Now I’m not condoning cannibalism in any way, but the above scenario only serves to make what the quotation state, in a nutshell, more understandable

@06:50 Sharif start quoting from the same source he provide now dealing with issues regarding women (I have no idea what link it has to ISIS topic and how is that related to ISIS in the video Just like the issue of cannibalism) and cites first forced marriage, I already dealt with force marriage before so I will cite my article[18], but first I would like to point out that this is yet again Like the accusation of cannibalism is not an argument duo to the lack of conclusion

But I will again try to form an argument from his premise, of course as I said, since there is no argument I can easily ignore this, in fact this entire video of Sharif can be easily ignored since he make little to no arguments in it at all

Again Argument = premises followed by conclusions

In order for him to formulate an argument he need to provide a conclusion

However what sparked my attention is the quote from book “ikhtiar” cited by the article stating the following, I will as I said try to formulate an argument on his behalf

“«لو استأجر الرجل المسلم امرأة ليزنى بها وزنى بها، أو وطئ أجنبية فيما دون الفرج، أو لاط فلا حد عليه ويعزر... صفحة 250، والزنا فى دار الحرب والبغى لا يوجب الحد... صفحة 252».”

Translation:

“And if a man haired a woman to commit Zina with or had sex with a foreign women outside her privet part then he should not receive punishment” page 250

“And Zina in dar hard (during battle) has no had” page 252

Now I had to look this up in the book, while I was reading through both chapter of Zina and sex with jariah I came across so many references and explicit citations of stoning and flogging anyone who commits any form of Zina

"الزانية و الزاني اجلدوا كل واحد منهما مئة جلدة"[19]

Translation

The zani (male one commit Zina) and zania (female one committing Zina) flog each one one hundred lash

This is from a verse

So right of the bat we already have a contradiction, should they be flagged and lashed or not? Will Sharif answer that? Even so far the very book in this very page state later on that the flogger should avoid flogging damaged or sensitive parts of the body

However after further investigation I was able to find the quote that caused the controversy later on it became clear to me what the book all about was, the quote wasn’t actually an authentication which shows how little research Sharif did

“قال: ( ولو استأجر امرأة ليزني بها وزنى بها أو وطئ أجنبية فيما دون الفرج ، أو لاط فلا حد عليه ويعزر ) وقالا : يحد في المسائل كلها . لهما في الإجارة أن منافع البضع لا تملك بالإجارة فصار وجود الإجارة وعدمها سواء ، فصار كأنه وطئها من غير شرط .”[20]

Translation:

They said: (and if he hired a prostituted to commit Zina to her or had sex with a foreign women, or another way of sex then no hud (punishment) should be applied) and they said: actually Hud is applied In all issues, if they have hired for porous then benefits should apply by that example it will be as hiring prostituted and not doing so being the same thing, it will be as he had sex without reason

So not only this is a misquotation, this shows that the book is a series of explanation to allegations

Now let us digress further more into his next point, he cites a quote from the same book

He cites

“ودية المرأة نصف ذلك ، ولا تغليظ إلا في الإبل ، ودية المسلم والذمي سواء”

Translation:

And women blood is worth half and as thick as that of camel, and Muslim blood is equal to that of Dhimmi (non-Muslim under Muslim protection)

Further reading the same book show the following

“" في النفس المؤمنة مائة من الإبل" أي تجب بسبب قتل النفس المؤمنة مائة من الإبل.”
Translation:

“And in the believing Soule equal to that of one hundred camels” meaning that by murder of a single believing soul is equal to one hundred camel

As evidence this is related to paying camels as blood oath for murder, now it’s unclear what does the above text suggest to Muslim women being half of it, as I read further as furthermore, it states that like she is half of the man witness and inherent and diyah (blood) as was stated in a specific hadith, upon further investigation I was able to find the closest hadith that this narration is borrowing from[21]

But if we read the reference underneath the footnotes

“‏3 ‏- ضعيف، وهذا لفظ النسائي (8 /44 ‏- 45) ‏”

Translation:

Weak, according to Nisai (8/44-45)

So if we appropriate this hadith and link it to the quote used in the book as suggested by the author it seems that the book relied on a week and fabricated narration

Later Sharif cite the allegation of killing the one who leaves prayer and commit Zina and the one who apostate and allowance of eating their flesh, but then again this goes back to the same source I cited at the start of my refutation above regarding cannibalism, i.e. those who leave Islam or the one who won’t pray or the one who commit Zina are among those that you can eat their flesh if you are forced to

But I want to point something out, if we use Sharif logic then Sharif just contradicted himself, if it’s allowed to kill the one who commits Zina here then why did he cite the quote that state that if a man commits Zina no hud is applied? (ولو استأجر امرأة ليزني بها وزنى بها أو وطئ أجنبية فيما دون الفرج ، أو لاط فلا حد عليه ويعزر)?

Why did he not notice this contradiction?

@07:08 he asked “have you seen countries as backward as us?

Backward to what? In what category?

Later he says that we fight people their ideas are taught in our schools

What ideas? Are you talking about science?

So are you saying there are no scientific accomplishments Arabs have done that are not thought in Arabs schools? What Ideas?

How that is even related to ISIS? This is a Non Sequitur fallacy

Later he says “ISIS are Muslims, and they know about Islam more than any other Muslim” now not only is this out must stupid, pathetic and ridiculous but also empirically false[22]

@07:24 he makes one of the must ridicule and outright foolish claims, he says “if these terrorists were Christians they won’t be terrorists if they were from any other faith they will never be terrorists”

And his evidence is? Will his evidence is a source about a story of a convert who became a terrorist who became a Muslim and committed acts of terrorism, the source for this accusation is this article[23]

The claim is from this text

“About 40 percent of those arrested on terrorism-related charges last year were converted to Islam according to “ISIS in America,” a new report by George Washington University. That’s disproportionate with the overall picture of Muslims in America, where less than one in four is converts.”

However this is a generalization fallacy, the people listed here are only converted from the United States, and not around the world, how could Sharif make such blatant idiotic and irrational error is beyond me

@07:49 now we are closing to finish this monstrosity of a video by Sharif, the state that even if we finish today ISIS another ISIS will replace them and he said “and I promise you they will be Muslims”

Later he shows a video of a Muslim chanting Allah Akbar, ironically neglecting that the very man said in the video “we will take revenge on you” I wonder why Sharif neglected this quote from the man, I wonder why

In final wrap up, I would like to leave you with these two videos By Asadullah Ali Andalusi

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkqSMTzvCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsVa-khWp4

Conclusion

Sharif made one of the most incoherent videos I have ever seen, he made little to no arguments, the lack of arguments in this video shows how not only he is ignorant but also how unnecessary it’s to make a response to him, because simply put forth if your opponent doesn’t make an argument then you are not forced and don’t need to refute what he says, 

---

[1] http://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-of-slaves-in-israel-global-study-finds/

[2] Ibid

[3] Chapter 1: issue 2 segment 3 of the Iraqi constitution

[4] http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

[5] http://www.aljazeera.net/votes/pages?voteid=5270

[6] http://www.investors.com/politics/perspective/tapper-scolding-of-carson-ignores-islamic-fifth-column-building-inside-america/

          [7] See Mary Crane, “Does the Muslim Brotherhood Have Ties to Terrorism?” available at 

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9248/does_the_muslim_brotherhood_have_ties_to_terrorism.html and Steven Emerson, “New Disclosures Tighten ISNA-Muslim Brotherhood Bonds” (International Analysts Network, August 8, 2008) available at http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2333

[8] What Do Muslim Canadians Want? The Clash of Interpretations and Opinion Research By Christian Leuprecht and Conrad Winn Page.25

[9] Ibid page.26

[10] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

[11] http://www.pewforum.org/2016/06/23/trends-in-global-restrictions-on-religion/

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid

[14] http://islamport.com/w/shf/Web/1229/549.htm

[15] http://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/146559

[16] Al-ikna’ fi Hal Al-Alfath by Abi Shuja’ vol.2 page.560-561

[17] Ibid page.562

[18] http://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-masked-arab-is-masked-falsehood.html

[19] Al-Ikhtiar Vol.4 Page.85

[20] http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=91&ID=455

[21] https://sunnah.com/urn/2114680

[22] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-documents-leak-recruits-islam-sharia-religion-faith-syria-iraq-a7193086.html

[23] https://thinkprogress.org/why-converts-to-islam-are-so-susceptible-to-becoming-terrorists-118582cfa179#.55heddz40