Episode 48 Supplement – Examining Responses to El Daheeh

Peace be upon you, and God’s mercy.

Introduction: The Nature of the Reactions

Dear brothers, whoever followed the reactions to the two episodes concerning the program "El Daheeh" has certainly noticed the great good in many young people who may outwardly seem distant from religion. Once they realized that their Islam was being targeted and that some people were deceiving them in the name of science in order to take away what remained of their faith, their love for God and His religion awakened. I salute these brothers and tell them: by God, I love you for your goodness and for refusing to let anyone mock you or steal your faith.

Anyone who followed the matter will also have noticed the character of the responses from those defending the promotion of atheism and myths. Let me clarify something important so that we speak precisely: not everyone who disagreed with me is defending El Daheeh. Some object to my style or to other matters, and my words are not aimed at them, because there is something more important to address.

My words concern those who defend a program of this kind. Even among them, I do not regard every person as someone deliberately promoting atheism or intending to defend its promotion. Yet when they fight so fiercely to defend such programs, the result is that they defend the spread of atheism and myths, whether they realize it or not.

I know that some of those objecting to me enjoyed a program such as El Daheeh and did not want to accept that it has a serious problem, because they like its comedy or its way of presenting some scientific ideas. They may not mean to defend atheism. Some may still be unconvinced that it broadcasts atheism and myths; others, sadly, may have absorbed doubts until atheistic ideas settled in their hearts. Let us take all these young people by the hand, be patient with them, and not drive them away by our manner, perhaps God will guide them through us.

I also know that some objectors may have an intellectual quarrel with this humble servant and therefore want to prove him wrong by any means. But such partisanship and preconceived judgments may keep them from seeing that the price they are paying is to defend the dissemination of atheism. There may be other reasons as well. Those who oppose us are not all alike, and it is wrong to put them all in one mold.

Two Important Messages

I am trying here to convey two messages: the first is to affirm that there is a harmful umbrella whose aims include spreading atheism, and that El Daheeh is only one of the programs serving those aims. Such projects have unfortunately multiplied in different Muslim countries. This fact must be stated plainly, without evasion, flattery, or softened language.

The second message is that I want everyone to notice these umbrellas and withdraw from them, including those on whom they rely, such as Ahmed El Ghandour, El Daheeh, and his team. We want them to leave behind the promotion of atheism and myths and step out of this system, because we belong to the community of him to whom God said: “And We have not sent you, O Muhammad, except as a mercy to the worlds.” [Al-Anbiya’ 21:107]. We must act knowing that we have no personal feud with anyone. We love and oppose for God’s sake; our aim is not to crush people, but to call them to guidance and beneficial scholarly production.

Setting Personalities Aside in Debate

Let us, those who disagree with us, agree on one thing. Do you have a complex about bearded men and generalize it to all of them? No problem: hate me if you wish. But do not let your hatred of me or of others throw you into the arms of atheism and myths and lead you to defend their spread. Do you have an intellectual disagreement with me? Fine, let us discuss it, but keep that discussion away from defending what causes atheism and destructive doubts among Muslim youth. Let us both step away from this harmful umbrella, then disagree as much as you like.

Do you benefit from this media umbrella and earn a living through it? Perhaps I cannot persuade you to fear God so that He may provide for you from where you do not expect. At least beware of reaching complete alignment with the promotion and defense of atheism and myths, so that your problem changes from weakness in supporting truth into strength in supporting falsehood. Let us therefore agree, everyone, to set our personal identities aside while discussing such subjects.

A Type of Defender of Atheism Promotion: Lies and Slander

There is another type, which is the central subject of this address: a group of program defenders who, when unable to answer an argument with an argument, resorted to personal attacks and slander. Their conduct shows that they are not seeking truth but are lying and seeking to mislead people. We will see how this group behaved for a long period after my last statement, before they came out with what they called a "discussion" of my words or "scientific responses" from their side, whose true nature and alleged scientific character we will also see at the end.

If you, who speak about this humble servant, slander me generally, outside this battle, in a way that does not serve atheism and myths, you will find that I do not occupy myself with you or pay attention to you. But if you lie and slander in personal attacks to support atheism, or if it does not matter to you that your lies support atheism and myths, then no: I must make your reality clear, expose your lies, ignorance, and lack of integrity. We must then ask whether people who act this way deserve credibility, whether they can be trusted with science or the media, and whether young people should listen to them. When you lie to undermine those exposing atheism, you gamble with young people’s minds and beliefs over personal problems of your own—you gamble with young people’s minds and beliefs over your own problems: personal disputes, ideological hostility, psychological complexes, livelihood, or attachment to an atheism you do not wish to abandon. Whoever defends falsehood will need to lie, and the more he speaks, the clearer his lies become. Let us see to whom this rule applies.

I will speak about three areas on which the people of myths and slander worked: the intellectual positions of this servant of God, efforts to get rid of him, and his scientific competence. Let us begin with the intellectual positions.

First Area: Intellectual Positions

Look, beloved ones. When I showed that El Daheeh promotes atheism and myths, I returned to (18) of its episodes and brought its words in sound and image. The expected first response from the huge media machine behind El Daheeh, with its many arms and open budget, was to deny my claims and answer me scientifically in order to preserve its credibility. They could not do so; well, that is no problem.

That media machine could have evaded the subject and tried to challenge my scientific credibility. Instead of answering my words about El Daheeh, they could have searched for scientific errors by me in other episodes unrelated to the response to El Daheeh. There are (46) episodes of "Journey of Certainty," in which I fight atheism and doubts and build faith on scientific foundations. They could have listened to them word for word and tried to find an error, thereby confusing my response to El Daheeh. That too would not have been a scientific method, but they did not even do it, because they could not: praise be to God, I do not publish a single word before checking it myself—checking it myself—returning to sources, and consulting specialists.

So what did they do? Some people left aside everything connected to the science I discuss and came after me as Eyad. They did not begin with scientific competence; they dug into intellectual and political positions they disliked from (6) years ago, from the time of the Arab revolutions. This is itself cowardly evasion and a severe defeat: I speak to you with science and research, and you answer with my religious positions. It is proof of complete bankruptcy and inability, and that you are not seeking truth. Still, since they personalized the matter, we will continue with them to see their honesty and credibility.

Those escaping scientific discussion and working through personal attacks exploited the fact that most people know nothing of my positions and articles from (6) years ago. It then became easy for them to distort matters as they wished, as though there were no preserved archive of my words and videos to which we will now return.

The Accusation of "Daeshization"

First, they began with the worn-out stereotype and ready-made label of "Daeshization." Some published articles making this claim, but their article was met with severe mockery and criticism from aware readers, so the page had to remove it. Then it posted it again; the ridicule increased and the responses intensified. They deleted it a second time and published a post expressing disappointment with the comments and lamenting the ignorance of the supposedly fanatical Arab citizen. In other words, either you agree with their slander or you are ignorant and fanatical. No, that will not do.

If you, who claim concern for humanity on your page, are confident in your words, leave them up, defend them, and bring proof from my archive; my archive exists. Or perhaps when you returned to it you noticed that I was among the first to criticize this group with detailed religious criticism, incident by incident, and that I was harmed and assaulted because of that. Perhaps you read the article "The Holocaust," whose truth we saw in reality, or "Exonerating Islam," in which I clear Islam of all crimes committed in its name, or the many articles showing a clear methodological separation from every group that harmed Islam’s image. We will place excerpts in the comments so that those unfamiliar with this matter can see how shameless liars can be. “If you feel no shame, do as you wish.” [Narrated by al-Bukhari] To everyone using this stereotypical Daeshization image we say: do not delete your articles; republish them and provide evidence, or apologize to your readers for lying. Do not expect young people to trust you after you have shown your true face.

That fabrication did not work for the people of myths and slander. Whoever uses it becomes a laughingstock among aware young people and loses credibility, so they moved on to another accusation.

The Accusation of Being "Gentle and Conciliatory" with Daesh and "Rejecting Fighting Them"

A writer in "Al Araby Al Jadeed"—I do not care to name him, but cite his words because he represents another method used by the people of myths—wrote that Qunaibi had long spoken about the Islamic State organization, Daesh, with gentleness and conciliation even while criticizing its spilling of Muslim blood, and had also rejected fighting it by Syrian factions or by the international coalition. So you admit that I criticize the bloodshed, but your complaint is that I speak gently to them and rejected fighting them.

Let us apply the rule, brothers: when one defends falsehood, as the people of myths do, every attempt at defense makes him lie more. First, this man says I rejected fighting them. The truth is that I rejected fighting among Muslims generally. Indeed, the first fighting I rejected and condemned was this organization’s fighting against other factions. I commented on incidents by name and condemned those who killed their Muslim brothers while acting as both opponent and judge, which has nothing to do with the law they claim to uphold.

Second, he wants to convince you that I rejected fighting them because they were "companions in methodology," as he says in several articles. Please watch my address "Brotherhood of Religion or Brotherhood of Methodology," published on 25\04\2014. In it I warn against loyalty and disavowal on the basis of a group, and affirm that ordinary Muslims who love their religion and their Lord’s law are dearer to us than people who join a group calling itself Islamic while their morals worsen or they become careless with Muslim blood.

Why, then, did I reject fighting an entire group? In many statements, such as "God, God, O Muslims" on 24\05\2013 and "Awaiting the First Bullet" on 03\01\2014, I explained that an exterminating war against a whole group would not eradicate it but would lead to a massacre consuming everyone. Whoever unlawfully spills blood deserves punishment and no honour—no honour, but fighting solely on the basis of belonging to a group does not punish only the guilty; blood from every side is lost.

Of course, brothers, to understand all these positions correctly you must see their context. Many years have passed and many events occurred afterward. The purpose is neither to reopen the issue nor to debate with these people what should or should not have been done (6) years ago. I will not dwell on the writer’s line that Qunaibi refused to align himself with those fighting on behalf of the international order and its client states, as if that refusal were a defect. Nor will I discuss what the factions he wants alignment with did years later. I do not want details to distract us from the central issue: the promotion of atheism and myths, and the lies and falsification used to attack those who expose their reality and that of the people they are partisan toward.

The greatest problem Muslims face today, alongside wars against them, their enslavement, plundering of their wealth, and their being kept ignorant, is the war against their religion and the broadcasting of doubts into their children to shake them from within. We will not allow those who participate in this intellectual war knowingly or unknowingly to distract us with another issue. Our aim is to repel this assault from all Muslims of every intellectual tendency: those we see as excessive, those we see as neglectful, those who previously spilled forbidden blood, or those who leaned toward oppressors. We exclude no one; we want to unite upon truth because we face a war targeting Islam itself and Muslims in all their varieties.

Notice, brothers, that the man who pretends to fear something happening to El Daheeh at the hands of people angered by him does not like us saying no to fighting between Muslims out of fear for innocent blood: "God, God, O Muslims," and "Do not be the owner of the first bullet." He treats this calming call as an accusation. No: let them be killed; El Daheeh is important, but thousands of Muslims dying for nothing apparently do not matter. El Daheeh matters to him, but thousands of Muslims dying for nothing do not.

This brings us to the third lie. He says that Qunaibi had long spoken about Daesh gently and conciliatorily, making you think I was gentle because I inclined toward them. Praise be to God, my archive remains to show the truth about these writers. In "Exonerating Islam," published on 15\08\2014, I said clearly that my gentleness with some young people in these groups was to draw them toward truth and sound judgment; they are not all alike, and, by God’s grace, some were influenced and left the group. My mildness was not ignorance of crimes committed by some members or of the deviation and corruption of leaders and security personnel. The writer does not like that. If El Daheeh errs and tries to persuade people that the universe is ordered by chance, that life has no purpose, and that pornographic films have great benefits, we must be gentle with him and not criticize him, lest someone harm him while he goes to fetch apples for his program. But young men who took a wrong road believing that they served Islam deserve neither gentleness nor concern nor discussion, and then he says of this servant of God that he rejected fighting them, whether by Syrian factions or the international coalition. You must play the tune demanded of you, or you stand accused.

Brothers, just as I am gentle with young people who fell into atheism and may insult or mock me, I am also gentle with young people who were deceived and followed deviant tendencies, whom we may win through persuasion and evidence. Just as some young people became atheists and then returned, by God’s grace, after watching "Journey of Certainty," other young people abandoned extremism and withheld their hands from Muslims after reading my words from that period. I will tell you something: even Ahmed El Ghandour himself—by God, his guidance is among the things most beloved to us. O Daheeh, if you retract what you published, correct it, clarify it, and observe integrity in addressing people, we will celebrate you, rejoicing that someone who was undermining our young people’s faith has become useful to them. We have a message and an aim: we love the guidance of people; we do not tell people that life has no purpose.

The Accusation of Hostility to Democracy

The fourth lie of the article’s writer—and I repeat that the writer himself is not my concern, but his article gathered lies scattered among others and made it easier to show his reality and that of his peers—is that he makes you think I oppose "democracy" in the sense of freedom and people choosing who represents them, so that you imagine I support authoritarianism and imposing oneself on others. He includes among his references an address called "For the Unity of the Ranks," apparently relying on the fact that very few people will return to the sources.

Those who have followed me since the Egyptian revolution know well from my articles and the series "In Support of the Sharia" that my problem with democracy is not that people participate in choosing who represents them, as liars suggest. Rather, I argue that democracy is a trap for returning people to the fold of the international order, perpetuating their subjection, and depriving them of the law through which their worldly and final well-being is achieved. As for imposing yourself on people and announcing that you have established a state and demanding their allegiance, I was among the first to condemn this conduct when a state was claimed in Iraq and Syria. I published an address on 13\04\2013 entitled "For the Unity of the Ranks," and another on 18\07\2014 when a caliphate was announced. In both, I explained that Muslims need to unite their word and restore their authority over their lands, and that announcing a state or caliphate unilaterally participates in seizing Muslims’ right, divides their ranks, and establishes neither a real state nor the true caliphate upon the prophetic model promised by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him.

The Fallacy of "Selective Fairness"

Another point, brothers: the defenders of El Daheeh demand fairness from us. They say the program has good elements and useful information, so why this exclusionary tone, why overlook merits and focus on negatives? Apart from the disaster of treating atheistic propositions as though they were minor mistakes, we answer: yes, simplifying science is beautiful and needed when it rests on sound scientific foundations, not when it is kneaded together with ideological myths that turn people into intellectual and creedal distortions.

Let us also ask you: if you are fair toward people spreading atheistic ideas, why are you upset by our fairness toward young people with whom we were speaking to stop them from fighting Muslims? Or is it selective fairness only for those you like? When a group frees Muslim men and women from prisons, we rejoice and praise that. Then on 15\02\2014 we say: "At the same time, any good act by any party does not give legitimacy to corrupt systematic policies it practices; rather it is told: “And do not be like she who untwisted her spun thread after it was strong.” [An-Nahl 16:92] We also remind the brothers who were freed: God has granted you deliverance from the hands of criminals, so thank God for His favor. Fear God regarding your Muslim brothers; do not let anyone tempt you to attack them or make their blood lawful. The favor of your release is from God alone, so do not obey anyone in disobedience to Him." Is this not the fairness that strengthens people’s good side while combating their bad side? Or is your fairness supplied only on demand?

In summary, dear people, whoever comes to defend falsehood will lie more and more, as Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s media man, said: "Lie, then lie until people believe you; then lie more until you believe yourself." Our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “A man continues to tell lies and pursue falsehood until he is recorded with Allah as a liar.” [Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim] Writers accuse others of partisanship for brothers in method in order to obscure the truth that they themselves are partisan and defend with falsehood those who promote atheism and myths. They are gentle and soft, but only with promoters of atheism and myths; they are fair and highlight positive points, but only with those promoters. With everyone else there is lying, deception, exclusion, and incitement without any moral restraint. They call for democracy and accepting the other, but not when the other exposes their lies and myths. If an atheist brings information, they say no problem, we separate his atheism from his knowledge. But if a Muslim exposes their myths with science, they refuse to separate anything; they search his history, and if they find nothing to condemn him, they turn his words 180 degrees and slander him too. They mock conspiracy theories, yet when someone exposes their myths with science they claim he is conspiring against El Daheeh and wants to portray him as an atheist so that someone might harm him. Glory be to God.

All of this, brothers, concerns the first area on which the defenders of atheism and myths have worked.

Second Area: Incitement to Dismissal and Imprisonment

The second area is incitement to dismiss me from the university and imprison this servant of God. One of their justifications is: "Qunaibi separates male and female students in lecture halls." This was published by a page encouraging girls to uncover themselves while defending El Daheeh, who speaks about benefits of pornographic images and pornographic content. So ethical problems, dishonesty, poor teaching, passing students dishonestly, and other matters often found among atheist or irreligious professors are apparently not the problem. The problem is a professor doing his duty, keen to teach his students, asking with kindness and fatherly care that males and females separate, with students complying comfortably and respectfully. Is this your scientific response to my episodes: "Why are you not imprisoned?" “Expel them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure.” [Al-A’raf 7:82]

Third Area: Casting Doubt on Scientific Competence

The third method used by the people of myths is to cast doubt on your brother’s scientific competence, on his competence to address scientific subjects. Of course, brothers, scientific methodology requires that the criterion be the evidence, not the person carrying it. It is not about the number of degrees, because a degree-holder may ultimately be ruled by desire and distort science accordingly, while someone may work hard outside his university specialization and produce respectable scientific work. Nevertheless, let us see their method even in this area.

The founder of a secular page that attributes itself to science and research published a post on this matter. Some brothers showed it to me, but its author later deleted it. It is strange how these people publish and delete, then publish and delete. Even so, it is not appropriate to prolong discussion of deleted posts.

But I will say briefly, brothers: if you want information about any researcher, you can go to ResearchGate or Google Scholar, enter the person’s name, and examine his published research and the journals in which he published. You will find that this humble servant has more than 20 papers and abstracts, 15 of them published in internationally peer-reviewed journals, not local ones. You will find a paper published in Houston, in which I was a participating researcher, in Molecular Pharmacology, whose Impact Factor is (4), not (1) as someone said. That research has received (159) citations so far, by God’s grace: 159 other research papers have cited it, and it was a turning point in its field.

There are also two registered patents, whose images I published in the episode "The Kidnapped Child," conference participation, and the award for best researcher at my university. I am also one of (3) academic reviewers for the world’s most widely used pharmacology textbook, Lippincott Pharmacology. I conducted doctoral research at the Texas Medical Center, one of the strongest medical research centers in the world. Then the people of myths, such as the Al Araby Al Jadeed writer, after slandering my religious positions, say that Qunaibi recently put on the mask of a scientist who speaks with foreign sources. The journey of academic distinction, by God’s grace, began (25) years ago, when I enjoyed reading Biology books for hours and reflecting on God’s creation. My grades in Biology 1 and Biology 2 were 100 and 99, first among students in all medical disciplines—medicine, pharmacy, nursing, science, and others—then first in my bachelor’s degree and first in my doctorate, by God’s grace. Yet they say that I only recently put on the mask of a man of science.

Despite all this, I do not argue against you using my degrees, nor have I ever answered those who disagree by saying that they are not specialists or asking where their scientific output is. The urgent question after all this is: if these people lie about information that can be checked so easily, how can they be trusted with science? How can we take any information from them? Do you not see, dear people, that they are doing exactly what the early pagans did? The early pagans avoided discussing the message and attacked the persons carrying it: madman, poet, soothsayer, taught by a human. Likewise, these people fled from answering the scientific evidence and personalized matters by attacking those exposing atheism and myths. Even when they personalized, they did not bring true matters, but lies that are easy to verify.

The Alleged "Scientific" Responses

Of course, brothers, ordinary followers objected to the evasion practiced by the people of myths. Most of my brothers were not aware that it was not merely evasion but lies and slander against my thought and religious positions. For more than ten days, the repeated phrase was: "Answer Dr. Eyad with a scientific response." A response had to appear, and so responses whose authors claimed to be scientific began to come out. Let us apply the rule again: whoever defends falsehood says more falsehood the more he defends it.

First Response: A Writer for Al Araby Al Jadeed

The first response came from the Al Araby Al Jadeed writer, the same one whose article we discussed. He said: "I will discuss the scientific content of Eyad’s episodes," then mentioned eight points. By God, brothers, scarcely one of his responses is free from falsehood, lies, or ignorance. They are summarized in three matters: attributing to me what I did not say and then attacking that imagined statement, what is known as the straw-man fallacy; mentioning embarrassing myths that make the authors of these responses look ridiculous; and raising doubts that I answered in detail in episodes of "Journey of Certainty."

Let us pass over the first point, because the writer says: "It is true that El Daheeh made mistakes in information, such as saying the design of the retina was wrong, but he apologized." Brothers, El Daheeh spreads false words before millions on YouTube and then apologizes on his personal Facebook account, seen by a very small proportion. This is speech disparaging creation, a weak familiar atheist doubt. Why did you not make a video correcting the mistake? Why did you not withdraw the episode, correct it, and put it back? No, only an apology on a personal account. As our saying goes: “He hit me in the town square and made peace with me under the stairs!” But let us leave that point: the writer admits there are errors. Let me show some problems in his second point out of eight, in respect for my time and yours. To prove evolution, he says that in Egypt there is Wadi Al-Hitan in Fayoum, a mine of fossils and evidence for evolution, where they found whales with legs and other links. I had already shown in compelling scientific detail that the phrase "whales with legs" is a ridiculous myth answered more than 130 years ago, and that these are mating bones, not legs. I explained that in the episode "Wake Up." So we tell the gentleman: wake up, my dear; go watch the episode so people do not laugh at you. Please return to that episode.

A second example: our friend from Al Araby Al Jadeed says, "Since Eyad accuses Western scientists of falsification, he cannot afterwards say: let us submit to institutional science and see what this paper says." He objects to my citing a paper in Nature because Nature is evolutionary and its writer is evolutionary, meaning he believes in evolution. Brothers, I answered this doubt in the episode "Rent Me Your Mind" and other "Journey of Certainty" episodes. We do not rent out our minds to anyone; we benefit from Western sciences and contribute to them, but distinguish real sciences from false ones by evidence and explain how indications from sound sciences are sometimes distorted in favor of false beliefs. This has been our work throughout the journey. Citing research by believers in the myth of evolution strengthens our argument: from your own mouth we condemn you. If a researcher publishes useful findings but draws a false conclusion serving his evolutionary creed, I am not bound to take everything from him. If you who blame us wish to rent your mind to them, you are free; we do not rent our minds to anyone.

Third, the writer asks in his scientific response: "Why does Qunaibi consider believers in evolution to be against Islam at all? For many years there have been interpretations and documents by Muslim writers considering evolution a tool of creation." From the outset, brothers, I do not consider those who say evolution is a tool of creation to be against Islam. I explained in detail in the episode "Why Does Evolutionary Theory Conflict with Islam?" that our principal problem is the claim of chance and randomness. I distinguished it from those who say creatures may have been developed by a Creator and discussed their view in detail.

Do you notice, brothers, what is happening? We deal with people who parrot the same myths we answered repeatedly, attribute to us what we never said, and raise doubts answered in detail. By God, if I remain in this state, I will spend my whole life reaffirming what has already been affirmed and repeating what has already been said. This is all only in the second of the (8) points written by our friend, and scarcely a point or sentence is free from falsehood.

The Other Responses

Exactly the same happened with the second response, whose female author claimed it was scientific, and with the third response as well. This is what I have seen so far: three responses whose authors claim to be scientific or to discuss the content of my episodes. We will put in the comments what shows that these responses too are, unfortunately, simply of the kind: the important thing is to respond somehow. You wanted a scientific response? There, I gave a scientific response.

Conclusion: A Call to Repentance and Cooperation

Finally, by God, those of you who falsify matters to defend falsehood: your return to what is right is more beloved to us. We invite you to take an honest stand with yourselves, not blinded by partisanship, and to repair what you have corrupted. We say to you: come, let us cooperate in righteousness and piety. Your community needs you, needs your energies and your knowledge. We remind you that God strongly condemned those who tried to deceive the Prophet and the believers, saying: “And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, Allah loves not one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal their evil intentions and deeds from the people, but they cannot conceal them from Allah, and He is with them when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And ever is Allah, of what they do, encompassing.” [An-Nisa’ 4:107–108] He warned against defending them, saying: “Here you are—those who argue on their behalf in this worldly life—but who will argue with Allah for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will then be their representative?” [An-Nisa’ 4:109] After the Qur’an fully explained the gravity of the crime and warned against defending its people, it opened the door of repentance for them—opened the door of repentance—and God said: “And whoever does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of Allah will find Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” [An-Nisa’ 4:110] We ask God to open their hearts to the truth.

Peace be upon you, and God’s mercy and blessings.