Dear ministry partners,

We pray that you are well and in the hands of the Lord. Even with the upcoming midterm election looming over us we must always remember that God is the one and only "I AM." 

I truly believe the outcome of this election will have a profound effect, either for good or for evil, on the rest of President Trump’s term in office. 

Ultimately, we pray the 2028 presidential election will not give us a Democrat for our President. But first we need a strong turn out of Republican voters in November 2026. We want more Republican Senate and Congressional seats being won in November 2026.

You can be assured that Usama is doing everything that he can to educate the county about the way Islam is infiltrating our country. He is speaking out about the tactics Muslims use to get their candidates elected to Congress, elected as Governors of States, as City Mayors and local officials. 

Please be in prayer for the all the upcoming events Usama will speak at. Please actively share the information with others. 

Another thing you can do is find places that will have Usama come to speak in your area. 

Out of the 30 Hebrew names for God I want to share 10 of them for you to meditate on in your prayers for the next few months. I hope they will help strengthen your relationship with God and give you peace as we all deal with events related to the upcoming election. 

NAMES OF GOD

1. Elohim - God The Creator (Genesis 1:1)
2. Yahweh - I Am, The Self-Existent One (Exodus 3:14-15)
3. El Shaddai - The All-Sufficient One, God Almighty (Genesis 17:1-2)
4. Yahweh Nissi - The Lord is My Banner (Exodus 17:15)
5. Yahweh Shammah - The Lord is There (Ezekiel 48:35)
6. Magen - The Lord is My Shield ( Psalm 71:5)
7. Basileus Basileon - The King of Kings (Revelation 19:16)
8. El Sali - The Lord is My Strength (Psalm 8:1)
9. Immanuel - God is With Us (Matthew 1:22-23)
10. Alpha Kai Omega - Alpha (first) And Omega (last) (Revelation 22:13)

We love you all,

Vicki

The program Last Call Live Video with BJ Edwards Saturday September 5, 2026 beings at 10:00am - 12:00pm  ET  Usama will be interviewed at 11:00 ET 

Tune in early so you won't miss anything.  Click the button below to join in.

This is a list of Questions that will be asked of Usama Dakdok. We hope you will come to hear the answers and even ask your own question if time allows.

What is your background?  Born in Egypt; Muslims took over

How did you get to the United States? Met wife

What makes the Qur'an incompatible with our US Constitution and our Christiam faith/bible?
Do they really come to the US to assimilate?
What verses in the Qur'an prove that their intentions are conversion to Islam or death to infidels?

What is the Islam strategy for taking over a city and state? Gaining power

In what ways can and will Muslims infiltrate Missouri? Local state offices; school boards, etc
What laws can be written to prevent this infiltration?

What do you think about the anti-Sharia Law that was passed by MO Legislators last session?
Will it do anything to slow the process down?

Customs that Muslims are trying to force upon US Citizens:

1. Foot washing ceremonies
2. Calls to prayer
3. Halal meat
1. What is Halal meat? How is it processed? 
2. What is the significance in the Qur'an of Halal meat? 
3. Does packaging have to label Halal meat?
4. Tyson Foods

Are all Muslim Mosques labeled as “Mosques?”
What are they being called? Learning / Life Centers – names that make Americans feel comfortable
Do all mosques require women to wear burkas?

What is the difference between the Qur'an and the Hadith?
What would be helpful to know about the Qur'an or Hadith in our conversations with Muslims?
Examples: Jesus; women, burka; genital mutilation of young girls

What can we do as Christians and the Church to stop this infiltration?

What about our Muslim neighbors? What is the balance between becoming friendly with the hope of sharing the gospel vs. being wary (but not fearful) of their possible intentions?
What are good ways to pray for Muslims?

Today, we begin with the first issue in the series: Women and Sharia law.

In this short episode, we examine claims about the rights, roles, and treatment of women under Sharia and consider how those principles compare with the freedoms and protections Americans often take for granted.

The video is only two minutes long. Watch it, consider the information presented, and if you believe it is valuable, share it with others.

Most people have seen the word halal on food, restaurants, or product labels. But how much do we actually know about what the term means and the religious system behind it?

Episode 2 takes a closer look at the subject and continues the broader conversation this series was created to address.

The video is less than two minutes long. Watch it, consider the information presented, and if you believe it is valuable, share it with others.

MORE FROM THIS SERIES WILL BE INCLUDED IN FUTURE NEWSLETTERS

AI and Islam – Part Two

By

Usama Dakdok

In this article, I continued a critical evaluation of AI’s claim that Islam teaches love and peace, focusing specifically on Qur’anic verses related to warfare and how they are interpreted within Islamic scholarship. The discussion began in a previous section where AI cited Qur’an 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” as evidence that Islam promotes religious tolerance and freedom of belief. However, when I pressed further about the broader Qur’anic teaching, AI acknowledged the Islamic doctrine of abrogation and admitted that Muslim scholars maintain that this verse is superseded by Qur’an 9:5, which states, “So when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them [as captives] and besiege them and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; so if they repent [convert to Islam] and perform the prayer and bring the legal alms, so leave their way free. Surely Allah is forgiving, merciful.”

I argued that AI’s portrayal of Islam’s war verses as purely defensive reflects a selective reading of the Qur’an and does not fully address Islamic doctrine, traditional interpretations, or the historical practice of jihad. When I asked AI to provide verses of the Qur’an that teach about war, AI organized them into six categories, the first of which was labeled “Permission to fight because of injustice,” citing Qur’an 22:39–40: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they have been wronged.” AI added, “This is the first verse granting permission to fight, and it emphasizes that it is because of oppression and persecution.”

 So now let us examine together Qur’an 22:39, “Permission is given to those who engage in war because they were wronged, and surely Allah is capable of helping them.” To that end, I cite the interpretation of Al-Tabari, who stated, “Allah has given permission to the believers who fight the polytheists in his cause because the polytheists wronged them by fighting them.”  Notice here that the phrase “by fighting them” does not appear in the Qur’anic wording and here we see that Al-Tabari inserted interpretive elements into the text. In his interpretation Al-Tabari also stated that, Qur’an 22:39 could be read in three different ways, each closely related in meaning, and he concluded, “These three readings are close in meaning. Whoever fights a person is himself being fought.” But I strongly criticize this reasoning, suggesting that it is circular logic, because if a Muslim is fighting someone, that does not necessarily prove that he was attacked first.

For the great Muslim scholar Al Tabari to say, “whoever fights a person is himself being fought” to me is like saying that if a butcher kills a cow, it must be because the cow was fighting him. In my view, this reasoning fails to establish genuine self-defense and instead allows scholars to justify almost any act of warfare by claiming reciprocity. For as a matter of fact, throughout the history of 1400 plus years of Islam, no foreign army ever attacked the Muslim people, but it was always the other way around Muslims invading other lands. That's why we have today 56 Muslim countries in the world. And almost all early invasions by Mohammed and his early companions were against civilians, not armies at all.

Al-Tabari also recorded disagreements among early authorities concerning who was intended in the verse granting permission to fight. Some said it referred to the Prophet and his companions when they were expelled from Mecca to Medina. I challenge this narrative by stating that Mohammed lived in Mecca for thirteen years preaching freely. During that time, he gathered a relatively small group of followers, with estimates from Muslim scholars ranging from 13 to 40, 70. I will round it up to about 100 believers. I believe that if the polytheists in Quraysh had truly desired to eliminate Mohammed and his companions, they could have done so easily, and therefore the claim of expulsion is questionable. Don't forget that Mohammed himself was able to kill 800 Jewish men in one afternoon, taking their wives and their children as concubines and slaves. Those are the people of Banu Qurayza as stated in Qur’an 33:26-27.

We also must know that before the migration to Medina, Mohammed sent some of his followers to Ethiopia, a Christian land. He later brought them back to Mecca after the episode commonly known as the Satanic Verses, in which he allegedly praised the three deities of Quraysh, Allat, Al Oza, and Manet. He later retracted those statements and claimed they were inspired by Satan rather than by Allah or Gabriel. When the hoped for reconciliation with the idol worshippers failed, Mohammed chose to send his followers from Mecca to Medina, a journey of approximately 210 miles north. He eventually left with his father-in-law, Abu Bakr al Sodiq. This departure was voluntary and not the result of forced expulsion.

In Al-Tabari’s account, which reports that when Mohammed left Mecca, Abu Bakr said, “They have expelled their Prophet. Indeed, we belong to Allah and to him we shall return. They will surely be destroyed.” Ibn Abbas reportedly linked this event to the revelation of Qur’an 22:39, and Abu Bakr said, “I knew then that there would be fighting.” This was the first verse revealed concerning fighting. Permission was given to them to fight after the Muslim believers had forgiven the Polytheists for ten years. I see this as clear evidence that the verse marked a turning point from patience to warfare. I once again dispute the claim that the believers had been persecuted or unjustly expelled.

Al-Tabari also recorded another opinion stating that the verse referred specifically to certain believers who intended to migrate from the abode of war, but were prevented from doing so. According to this view, Allah permitted the believers to fight the disbelievers who obstructed their migration. Now we see this as contradictory to the previous explanation and I argue that the scholars cannot decide whether the verse concerns people expelled from Mecca or people prevented from leaving it. I see these differing interpretations as fabrications designed to create a narrative of persecution that would justify warfare as defensive.

Another explanation recorded by Al-Tabari, claiming that the companions sought permission from Mohammed to kill the disbelievers when they were harmed and persecuted in Mecca, and so Allah revealed, “Indeed, Allah does not love every treacherous ingrate.” In my view, such interpretations are attempts to portray the early Muslims as victims, thereby framing Qur’an 22:39 as a defensive command. Instead, I know that there was no real persecution during the thirteen years in Mecca and that Mohammed and his companions were not in serious danger.  I believe that if the Qurayshi people had wished to kill Mohammed and his people, they could have done so quickly, especially given the small size of the Muslim community at that time.

Then later after the migration to Medina, when Mohammed’s following reportedly grew to around 10,000 men. Those are the men that preferred death more then others prefer life. That is when the Muslims were no longer a vulnerable minority, but a powerful military force. That is when Mohammed was capable of ordering mass killings. Once Mohammed gained strength, warfare became central to his mission, and the earlier narrative of persecution served to legitimize subsequent military campaigns. The idea that the war verses were purely defensive is a pure lie from hell taught by the modern day Muslim scholars and the AI. Here I must assert that the scholars themselves, including Al-Tabari, emphasized Allah’s granting of victory to the believers, who fight in his cause. Allah honored them, raised them by destroying and humiliating their enemies, by their hands.

Finally, let me remind you of what the great scholar Al-Qurtubi wrote that this verse “abrogates everything in the Qur’an that speaks of turning away and ignoring, or forgiving. It is the first verse revealed concerning war.” I present this statement as decisive proof that Qur’an 22:39 marked the beginning of an abrogating trajectory toward warfare rather than defensive propaganda. I conclude that the traditional Islamic interpretations undermine AI’s initial portrayal of Islam’s war verses as purely defensive and peaceful. This theme will continue in my ongoing study of AI and war in Islam, in the following articles, Lord willing.

AI and Islam – Part Three

by

Usama Dakdok

In previous articles we critiqued AI’s claim that Islam teaches love and peace by examining Qur’anic verses related to warfare. First, I began by noting that while AI cited Qur’an 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion,” AI later acknowledged the doctrine of abrogation, stating that this verse is superseded by Qur’an 9:5, which commands fighting polytheists. I challenged AI’s portrayal of Islamic warfare as defensive, focusing on Qur’an 22:39, arguing that classical scholars like Al-Tabari added interpretive elements to frame the verse as defensive, despite the text not explicitly stating. I also critiqued differing scholarly explanations about the inconsistent views of whether early Muslims were expelled or prevented from migrating. I maintained that early Muslims were not truly persecuted in Mecca, that warfare became central only after Mohammed gained power in Medina. I concluded that traditional interpretations contradict AI’s simplified, defensive portrayal of Islamic teachings on war. Today, I explore the second reason AI gives to prove Islam is a loving, peaceful religion, to consider the second reason for war as stated by AI was to fight only those who fight the Muslims no aggression. AI proved that by quoting the following verse, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love transgressors,” Qur’an 2:190.

After that AI made the following comment: “Clear rule, fighting is against aggressors only, with a strong prohibition against injustice.”

Then, I asked did AI look at any Islamic scholars’ interpretations? Not the scholars who wear suits and ties and live in America, but the original, classic scholars, those who truly understood and interpreted the Qur’an. Not only because they have their own opinion, but because they investigated how Mohammed, his early companions, and the followers of the companions until today have understood and practiced these Qur’an verses. First, the true accurate translation of Qur’an 2:190 states, “And engage in war for the sake of Allah against those who engage in war against you, and do not transgress. Surely Allah does not love the transgressors.”

Amazingly, the Muslim scholar Al Tabari began his interpretation stating scholars disagree about this verse and then that some of them said that this verse was the first one given to Mohammed concerning war with polytheist people. How can this be when Qur’an 22:39 was the first verse in which Allah ordered Muslim believers to engage in war? Obviously, the scholars of Islam are inaccurate, so I call them fabricators not interpreters.

More amazingly, Al Tabari stated that scholars declared that Allah, in that verse, ordered the believers among the Muslims to engage in war with the polytheists who engaged in war with them and that they must stop engaging in war with those who stop engaging in war. Disregarding the previous statements, I quote Al Tabari: “Then this verse that is, Qur’an 2 :190 was abrogated by Qur’an 9.” Continuing with his interpretation, he stated that El Rabia stated this was the first verse given in Medina where Allah commands Mohammed to engage in war with those who fought him.

Obviously, that verse was abrogated when Allah revealed to Mohammed chapter 9. Al Tabari quoted another scholar, Ibn Zayd, who repeated that information but also added Qur’an 9:36, where Allah stated “… and engage in war with all the polytheists as they engage in war with all of you. And know that Allah is with the fearer.” Then he quoted Qur’an 9:5, well known to Islam scholars as the verse of the sword. Allah stated, “So when the forbidden months are passed, so kill the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them (as captives) and besiege them and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush; so if they repent (Convert to Islam) and perform the prayer and bring the legal alms, so leave their way free. Surely Allah is forgiving, merciful.” Al Tabari continued, but other interpreters said Allah did not change his mind concerning the killing the infidels, that Qur’an 2:190 was not abrogated but what Allah abrogated is forbidding the Muslims from killing the women and the children. This command of not killing women and their children is good even today.

Consider, in the early days of Islam, Mohammed fought using catapults, throwing rocks and fire on villages fortified by walls because he lacked enough men and weapons to strategically engage in war long. But he was fighting during the night and he did not care about saving the women and the children, whom he later used as concubines and slaves to reward Muslim men who followed and engaged in war alongside him; that's why the verses of the Qur’an were given to Mohammed as needed. Mohammed, in the last few years of his life, became so powerful, with 10,000 Muslim men who loved death than life. Mohammed had no reason to continue killing women and children because obviously they are the spoil of war.

Yes, they took the gold and silver, money, land, and homes, but you can add women and children. In such days it was more beneficial for the Muslim men to have them, to enjoy them sexually or to use them as slaves. That's why in the later verses of the Qur’an, Allah forbade the Muslim from killing women and children. Consider that itself is internal evidence from the writings of the scholars of Islam like Al Tabari that the war between Mohammed and the infidels of his days was not a military war, that is, the armies of Mohammed engaging in war with the armies of the enemies. No, Mohammed and his savage followers were engaging in war against villages, against civilians and the more powerful Mohammed became, the more he took advantage of the enemies. Now he is not killing the women and the children, not because he is compassionate, loving, and merciful no, no, no, it is because they became the spoils of war. Similarly, in the early days of Islam, Mohammed used to burn the villages, including their trees, but later Mohammed stopped burning trees or villages, or homes, because once again that is more spoil of war. Why would you destroy a city you will possess? Why would you destroy a land you will inherit? Why would you destroy the palm trees or available vegetables by burning them if you can simply own it? Why would you kill women and children when they also will be owned by Muslims, so they can raise Muslim babies or for sex or slavery? That's how Islam spread in the early days; within 100 years Muslims seized many Christian countries. Christian lands became Muslim lands, like my home country Egypt.

A bit later in the history of Islam, as stated by the scholar Al Tabari, a man by the name Yahya Ibin Yahya al Rasani wrote to Omar Ibn Abdul Aziz and asked him concerning Qur’an 2:190. Omar answered him, “This verse is talking about not killing the women and the children.” So he did not engage in war with them. Similarly, Al Tabari stated concerning the interpretation of Mujahid, I quote what Ibn Abaas, Mohammed’s cousin, said about it. He clearly said, “Do not kill the women, nor the children nor the old men.” He continued to state that Omar Ibn Ab Al Aziz wrote that Qur’an 2:190 interpretation as ‘do not kill those who do not engage in war with you,’ that Allah meant women, little ones, and monks. And he corrected himself by saying the accurate interpretation is women and little ones which means to me, ‘go ahead and kill the monks because they may fight you later.’

Simply, the disagreement between scholars of Islam concerning Qur’an 2:190 is that verse completely abrogated because new verses which came later ordered Muslim believers to kill polytheists everywhere they find them whether or not they engage in war with them. Or that this verse’s command was abrogated concerning the killing of women and children. Because those are the ones who could not engage in war with the Muslim believers. Either way, we can conclude that AI disregarded the interpretation of all Muslim scholars concerning Qur’an 2:190.

Simply, Al Tabari summarized his interpretation of Qur’an 2:190: The verse is telling Muslim believers to engage in war for Allah by following his religion and commands. They are to call others to accept Islam, and if people refuse and oppose it, they may be warred against until they either submit to Islam or, if they are from the People of the Book, agree to pay the jizyah out of hand and they are subdued, humiliated. Thus, the meaning of the statement “And do not transgress” is, do not kill a child, nor a woman, nor anyone who has paid you the Jizyah.

This theme will continue in my ongoing study of AI and war in Islam, in the following articles, Lord willing.

For more information about Islam, visit www.thestraightway.org.  To debate information in this article, please call 941-223-3698.