‘Has the West lost it?’ by Kishore Mahbubani

The book, ‘Has the West lost it?’ by Kishore Mahbubani (2018), was amazingly light and an easy read. Its 90 pages took me less than two hours to complete! Something about it was refreshing. I think it was the notion that the future is not one inexorably tied to an increasingly depressing vision where the West becomes ever more cynical in its use of tyranny in the name of ‘freedom’: where it’s iron-grip tightens around its spaces in desperation to not lose control, and in its attempt to squeeze any semblance of Islam via secularisation processes that it’s been promoting and exporting for some time now.

As such, reading about the data on the alleged ‘decline of the West’ was novel:

“In 1976. the West launched the G7… their share of global GDP was 45.3 per cent in 1995. By contrast, the share of the E7… was half that at 22.6 per cent. However, by 2015 their respective shares were 31.5 per cent (G7) and 36.3 per cent (E7).”

(page 25)
Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Book Reviews

Britain’s ‘Historical Amnesia’ about its British Empire

In this video, Shashi Tharoor, briefly, discusses how very little about Colonial history is taught in schools.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under History, Neo-Colonialism

Has the Qur’an been Reliably Preserved?

Paul (Bilal) Williams here demonstrates how modern secular scholarship is a) discarding the radical historical-scepticism/ historical revisionism of the 1970s and b) affirming the reliability of the traditional (Islamic) account of the Qur’anic compilation. In particular, Paul refers to Professor Angelika Neuwirth’s entry in the Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an.

Why is this important?

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under #Islam Vindicated, Qur'an

Is the Qur’an Authentic?

Some SHOCKing findings must be expressed based upon a “comparative investigation” made on two of the oldest manuscripts of the Qur’an we possess:

“The first manuscript known as Birmingham folios… is probably originated from Cairo (Egypt) and the second manuscript known as Sanaa folios… was discovered in an ancient mosque of Sanaa (Yemen). The old folios are carbon-dated from the period of the first century of Hijra: between 568 CE and 645 CE for the Birmingham parchment and between 578 CE and 669 CE for the Sanaa parchment.

NOTE: there are ZERO (that is, 0) manuscripts for the NEW TESTAMENT from the first Century CE.


“The two ancient scriptures corresponding to chapters 19 and 20, from Birmingham and Sanaa, were found to be similar to the present Uthmanic Quran compilation, in their basic morphology, as written in the old Arabic scripture.” That is to say, they correspond exactly to the current Qur’ans we possess, word for word. Let that sink in.

“This result involves that the Quran chapters 19 and 20 have been safely preserved during the last 14 centuries without alteration. Statistically speaking, this result suggests that the Quran, and not only chapters 19 and 20, should have been safely preserved during the last 14 centuries as well.

“Now, the raising question is: how could it be possible to have two different old parchments, coming from two different regions and dating from 14 centuries, which present a so great similarity with the present Uthmanic Quran compilation? The only interpretation, one can derive, is that the holy scripture has been delicately preserved by the Quranic scholars, by means of memory (i.e. learnt by heart) and by means of writing (i.e. written on parchments), and all that was probably controlled with a great rigour.”


“Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).”

(Qur’an, al-Hijr – The Rocky Tract 15:9)

“…it is stangely stated that the holy Scripture is protected and preserved by His Creator; which is in total concordance
with the result of this scientific investigation, at least for the investigated chapters.”

So it seems the claims of the author of the Qur’an has been proved true. And, moreover, given that this has been proved true. what other claims in the Qur’an might also be true?

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under #Islam Vindicated, Qur'an

The Modern Menace. Calling Authentic Knights!

A Review of ‘The Modernist Menace to Islam’ by Daniel Haqiqajou (2021)

‘The Modernist Menace to Islam’ by Daniel Haqiqajou is subtitled, ‘A Muslim Critique of Modern-isms’ and checking by the contents, the reader gets a quick gauge of the breadth of what Haqiqajou hopes to cover:

  1. Atheism

  2. Secularism & Democracy

  3. Freedom, Equality and Liberty

  4. Feminism

  5. Hijab

  6. Science & Scientism

  7. Liberalism, Liberal Hypocrisy

  8. Progressivism, Morality

  9. Reformists, Modernists

  10. Sex & Zina

  11. Homosexuality & LGBT

  12. Malaise

  13. Muslim Skeptic

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Book Reviews, The Secular Religion of Modernity

History and Hadith: Prophet Muhammad vs George Washington

This video (in summary form) by Saajid Lipham outlines how much most people don’tknow much about the ‘Sciences of Hadith’ (Usul al-Hadith) and how exacting it is.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under hadith, History

The Historicity of the New Testament Series

If you want to review deep and thorough dives into the New Testament, asking the ‘Historicity’ Question, then here follows a series of online group meetings vis-a-vis EF DAWAH and their guests with the lay and specialists from the Christian community, world-wide.

What is Historicity?

“The historical dimension of human phenomena, or the distinctive sociohistorical circumstances of a specific event or series of events. Theories ignoring this dimension are ahistorical.”

Oxford Dictionary
Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Jews Christians and Muslims

“I never saw any Atheist go door-to-door spreading Atheism…”

“I never saw any atheist go from door to door or invade continents to spread atheism lol”

My response:

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Atheism

“…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.”

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering* shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

In ‘Nuremberg Diary’ by Gustave Gilbert.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under War in Errorism

On the Validity of using Secular Liberal terms in a Muslim Critique of Secular Liberalism

Is it valid for Muslim interlocutors to utilise Secular Liberal Humanist terms in their project of critiquing Secular Liberal Humanism?

On the face of it, one would have to conclude a clear ‘no’ – especially since the Muslim critique often distances itself from the Secular Liberal Humanist paradigm by identifying certain ideas or notions that ‘Liberalised’ Muslims might be currently using (wittingly or) unwittingly, which the Muslim critique identifies as arising originally from the Secular Liberal Humanist paradigm and as such is deemed ‘un-Islamic’ or, to various extents, divergent to the project of Islam. An example might be the notion of ‘Liberation’ espoused by the Secular Liberal Humanist civilisations’ grand-narratives as being one of the primary motives and prima facie justifications for the (correct) development of human civilisation. The quest for liberation is often equated to notions of (supposed) progress. This ‘story’ might be useful for non-Muslim projects (and each to their own) but for Muslims to borrow this as though this is somehow a major Muslim priority so that (‘Liberal’?) Muslim activists focus on projects too that ‘liberate’ (i.e. via engaging with contemporary gender and sexuality wars) rather than projects to do with Tawheed, for instance (and its associated efforts for ilm, dawah, social-work in the community, charity and justice) can be regarded as seriously problematic.

Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under The Secular Religion of Modernity