Jesus or Muhammad on ABN Wednesday (March 10th)

It's that time again. I'll be on "News and Views" and "Jesus or Muhammad" with Pastor Joseph on ABN tomorrow (Wednesday). Here's the schedule.

6:00 P.M.-7:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
"News and Views"

10:30 P.M.-12:15 A.M.
"Jesus or Muhammad?"

12:30 A.M.-1:30 A.M.
"Rapid Fire"

(I know many of you miss Sam; he's scheduled to return for our shows on March 20th-21st.)

Exposing Barakah: A rhetoric interrogation by Barakah on Pal-talk’s: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’.

On 5 March I was contacted by a Christian debater from Pal Talk and after a little chat I decided to journey through a number of rooms on the Social issues.

One particular room of interest was the Islamic room: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and not Oppressed’, which was administrated by an Arabic female Muslim with a French accent, by the name ‘Barakah’ whom I (after 30 minutes experience on the chat room) deem to be a psycho.

As far as I know the name 'Barakah' means blessing, however, the experience was closer to a curse.

I entered the room ‘Muslim Women are Respected not Oppressed’ stayed for a little while whereupon I left a link to a Christian site before entering another room. Leaving a link seemed reasonable to me since it did not seem to be prohibited. After a minute, Barakah virtually hunts me down on pal-talk, sending me at least 15 notifications and a private message.

In the private message Barakah through rather intimidated wordings challenged me to be brave enough to dare enter the room again where she threatened to publically expose me and my religion. It was quite obvious from her wordings that I would be considered a coward unless I acted upon her command.

It was also perfectly obvious to me that entering the ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’ room, meant entering a room full of Muslims, with debate based upon violent insult, intimidation and Muslim rhetoric including an admin that would continually victimize me by red doting by blocking my text and muting my voice.

After a few minutes I nevertheless decided to take the risk and give the Muslim female debater a chance.

I quickly realised that my expectation of the room were far from exaggerated. Barakah made it very clear that she did not care about me or my religion, or my answers or explanation; in fact she claimed openly that as a Christian I simply had no answers and nothing worth saying, so I could simply spare myself the effort.

So now I was getting really confused, she had called me back into the room to defend my faith, yet after meeting her challenge and being brave (according to her mentality) and entering the room I am immediately informed by her and the room that they have already presupposed that as a Christian I should not be listened to.

This was turning out to get really funny.

Well I still decided to give her a chance.

After several minutes of abuse and rhetoric (only God knows what I had to put up with) she finally asked me to come to the mic and show the room ‘where Jesus says he is God’. I had a good answer to her question, but I refused to enter a debate that reminded about an interrogation (I know that Muslims tend to like it this way, my own experience is an excellent example). I am indeed happy to debate or dialogue, yet if Muslims think that I am or consider myself a ‘dhimmi’ like the Christians they suppress in their own Muslim nations (and from whom they mentally drain all confidence and personal pride), they will quickly find themselves very offended.

Rather than letting Barakah interrogate me and decide my wordings. I asked for five minutes to explain this question but I never got that far; after only 15 seconds I was muted. Barakah came back on the mic and insulted me for being unable to answer and scared to deal with the issue whereupon she challenged me to take the mic again and answer her question.

Again I only managed to speak on the mic for 10 seconds, without being allowed to answer the question. I got muted as before by Barakah, who again resorted to insult my personality, religion and had the audacity to claim again and again that I was a coward. She had even blocked my writing to unable my comments to her insults and abuse.

She challenged me a third time to take the mic and answer her question.

By this time it was clear that this was not a debate or a dialogue but a rhetorical conversation in which I was being interrogated and yet not permitted to answer. This was abuse, intimidation, manipulation a joke. She stated time and time again that she had no interest in my answer and explanation, that it was simply a waste of her time.

The third time I elaborated on the word ‘coward’, this time I literally called her a coward, after all she was the one being too scared to engage me in a proper dialogue without continually red dotting me after 10 seconds and muting my answers. I pointed out that I probably was the only Christian in a room of 60 Muslims who continuously abused my character and religion, muted my answers and blocked my writings; this whole scenario was literally ridiculous.

At this point Barakah accused me of insult (yeah try imagine) and continually called me a coward and chicken for not sharing in her rhetoric games (all I had asked for was for me to answer her question in my own way; but Barakah insisted that my answer would be a waste of time).

I was allowed to the mic a fourth time, this time I challenged Barakah for a proper the debate on any subject but under a different admin, an admin would that play fair games; but Barakah (this blessing of Allah does not like fair games) as before I was muted within 15 seconds. In fact I had already challenged Barakah to debate me properly prior to this, even in writing.

This obviously made Barakah go crazy, I guess the Muslim listeners began realizing that she was running away from a challenge, and she muted me as before, called me a coward and heaped upon me insult upon insult.

I even apologized if I had come on against her too strongly or if she had found me insulting her, and again I asked respectfully if she was interested in debating me under a proper debate format and a fair admin (yeah imagine I even humbled myself to that level).

This dialogue (if we can call it a dialogue) went on for 30-40 minutes, I went on the mic probably ten times, asking her to debate me formally, and every time being red dotted after 10-15 seconds whereup I was insulted and intimidated to every possible length and at the same time prohibited from writing.

Finally I had enough and left.

I have to say that the experience reminded me of my early days in Birmingham, being encircled by 10-20 Muslims and being bombarded with questions and arguments without being given the opportunity to answer.

http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html

In fact most Muslims I have encountered in debate and dialogue are not interested in the Christian answering, either due to the ‘dhimmi’ mentality or because they are scared to listen and particularly scared of the answers or objections raised by the opponents (possibly both).

Barakah seems to have all the questions but to dread the answers and the contra attack against her faith.

I would advise Christians not willingly to submit themselves to chat rooms or individuals who resort to such behaviour or rhetoric methods. Yet my challenge to Barakah remains, I am more than willing to meet her in a proper debate with a pre-planned format under an admin which will act fairly toward both of us.

The impression I had of Barakah is: she knew that in a proper debate against me and without her administrative authority to reddot and mute her opponents, her arguments and her faith would have been ripped into pieces (she knew that); hence the reddot was and is her only protection.

However, I seem not to be the only one having experienced the desperately antagonising behaviour of Barakah; here is another example from Youtube (but it reveals far from the level of antagonizing behaviour I experienced from Barakah):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqbRizFjjQk

My only conclusion after 40 minutes on her chat room is: despite her admin authority and the reddot she was hiding behind this female Muslim debater was in reality on the run.

American-Born Convert to Islam (and Terrorist) Azzam al-Amriki (i.e. Adam Gadahn) Captured

Well-rounded American boy (and former goat-farmer) Adam Gadahn converted to Islam several years ago, and he somehow got the idea that Islam commands him to fight non-Muslims (perhaps he's thinking of verses like Surah 9:29, which explicitly commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims, though it must mean something else, since Islam is peaceful). Recently, he released a new tape calling for American Muslims to follow the example of Major Nidal Malik Hasan and attack American targets. (Apparently, he didn't get Abdullah al-Andalusi's memo saying that Muslims, instead of following the example of Muhammad, will have to renounce U.S. citizenship before waging Jihad against America.)

CAIRO – Al-Qaida's American-born spokesman on Sunday called on Muslims serving in the U.S. armed forces to emulate the Army major charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood.

In a 25-minute video posted on militant Web sites, Adam Gadahn described Maj. Nidal Hasan as a pioneer who should serve as a role model for other Muslims, especially those serving Western militaries.

"Brother Nidal is the ideal role-model for every repentant Muslim in the armies of the unbelievers and apostate regimes," he said. Read more.

Fortunately, this young terrorist has been captured.

KARACHI, Pakistan - Adam Yahiye Gadahn, a U.S.-born spokesman for al-Qaida, has been captured in Pakistan, government sources said Sunday. . . .

A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years. He could face the death penalty if convicted. He was also charged with two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.

Gadahn, 31, grew up on a goat farm in Riverside County, Calif., and converted to Islam at a mosque in nearby Orange County. . . .

Al-Qaida has used Gadahn as its chief English-speaking spokesman, and he has called for the destruction of the West and for strikes against targets in the United States. In one video, he ceremoniously tore up his American passport. In another, he admitted his grandfather was Jewish, ridiculing him for his beliefs and calling for Palestinians to continue fighting Israel. . . .

In the latest video, Gadahn said those planning attacks did not need to use only firearms like Hasan, but could use other weapons. "As the blessed operations of September 11th showed, a little imagination and planning and a limited budget can turn almost anything into a deadly, effective and convenient weapon."

Gadahn said fighters should target mass transportation systems in the West and also wreak havoc "by killing or capturing people in government, industry and the media."

He recommended finding ways to shake "consumer confidence and stifle spending" and noted that even unsuccessful attacks, such as the failed attempt to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, can bring major cities to a halt. Read more.

Since Islam is peaceful, we should expect Muslims around the world to be cheering in the streets when they hear that another misrepresenter of Islam has been captured. Indeed, we should expect cheering that will surpass the demonstrations that took place after 9-11.

PREDICTION: No matter how Gadahn is treated in custody, I predict he will complain that he's being tortured.

*****UPDATE***** There appears to be some confusion among reporters as to the identity of the man arrested. Some are reporting that Gadahn was arrested, while others are saying that Abu Yahya Azam (a different American terrorist) was arrested.

Islam and Female Genital Mutilation (Female Circumcision)

For some reason, many Muslims in the West deny the fact that Islam promotes female circumcision. To help clear up this issue, consider this fatwa (and the videos that follow).

Assalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakaatuhu

1. Circumcision for males is Waajib (compulsory) according to Imaam Abu
Hanifa. If circumcision will hinder a person from accepting Islam then
accepting Islam should be given preference over circumcision.
2. It is Mustahabb (commendable) for females to circumcise. It is narrated
in an authentic Hadith quoted from Abu Dawood Shareef that during the
Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)'s time there was a woman in Madinah
who used to perform circumsicion for women (Fathul Bari vol. 16 p. 353)

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT. SOURCE.

Here's the Hadith referenced:

Sunan Abu Dawud 5251--Umm Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.

The translator adds the following footnote, summing up the positions of Islamic scholars:

The reference is to the circumcision of girls. It was practiced in Arabia when Islam came. It is disputed amongst the jurists. Some Shafi'i scholars hold that circumcision of girls is obligatory, but others think that it is recommended. Ata, Ahmad b. Hanbal, and some Maliki jurists also hold that it is obligatory. Abu Hanifah maintains that it is recommended and not obligatory. Malik also holds that it is recommended. According to Ahmad, circumcision of women is recommended but it is obligatory in men.

Of course, if you don't like the conclusion, you can always dispute the Hadith.

Dispatches: Britain's Islamic Republic

You're not going to believe this. New evidence shows that certain Muslim groups in the UK, while claiming to be moderate and tolerant, are actually working to overthrow the British government and establish Sharia law! Where in the world did these Muslims get the idea that they should deceive unbelievers and pretend to be friendly, all with the goal of conquering them? (Hint: Read the Qur'an and Hadith.)

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE


PART FOUR


PART FIVE

Free Turkey from the Islamic Oppressors!

During World War I, Turkish Muslims annihilated more than a million Armenian Christians. The pattern of deportation, cattle cars, death marches, concentration camps, starvation, and mass executions was later imitated by Hitler in his attempt to destroy the Jews. Yet we do not remember the Islamic genocide that ended in more than a million deaths. After all, to point out such atrocities would be Islamophobic and racist (and, as the video shows, Muslims are all-too-willing to brutally murder you if you press the issue).


Watch CBS News Videos Online

Special Acts 17 Promotion for The Answers Conferece!

Abdullah al-Andalusi Defends Terrorism, Tries to Cover-Up His Words, Condemns Muhammad, and Threatens Legal Jihad!

Our friend Abdullah al-Andalusi objects to my claim that he supports terrorism (or, at least, that he did so on a particular occasion). My reasoning has been simple:

(1) The Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack.
(2) Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre.
(3) Therefore, Abdullah supports terrorist attacks.

Of course, if anyone objects to (1) or (2), my conclusion will not follow. Most of us, however, hold that the Fort Hood Massacre was a terrorist attack. Indeed, even the ultra-dhimmi Obama Administration now admits this. The only question, then, is whether Abdullah supports attacks like the Fort Hood Massacre. Here we can read his own words, written shortly after the shooting. (Read his words carefully, for he has riddled the comments section with claims such as "I did not justify the Fort Hood Incident in the first place" and "I have clearly stated my opinions about the matter, that I DO NOT SUPPORT the actions of the Foot Hood massacre.")

Hi guys,

Firstly, no one says that Muslims should 'rise up to kills all americans' - READ THE FULLY QUOTE "Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place."

Which I believe in too - which means military targets are viable during war, but NO CIVILIAN TARGETS (and before you mention civilians on the Army base - they are just a sad accident of war- much like the 1000's of dead Iraqi and afghan civilians right?).

I'm sorry guys, but it is time for you to admit when you are wrong to condemn - soldiers go to fight in wars, and in that incident, soldiers got killed - big deal!

Yeah so it happened on american soil, so what, american pilots and drone controllers will track down the enemies of the USA to their very homes and shoot a missle through its living room, despite their family being there or not. I guess the motto of the story is, do unto others, as you would have done unto you". Perhaps your christians should look at this incident, as a 'judgement of God' upon the wicked american army.

p.s. One thing I have noticed, for people who profess to love everyone, most of you are full of hate (your emotions are hateful, whether or not your tongue issues peaceful platitudes - repent now to the only God 'the Father').

Notice what Abdullah believes: (i) Muslims should fight the American aggressors; (ii) military targets are viable during war; (iii) the civilians killed during the Fort Hood Massacre were "just a sad accident of war." His response to American soldiers being killed by a Muslim was, to quote him, "big deal."

This is obviously a defense of the Fort Hood Massacre. And since we regard the Fort Hood Massacre as a terrorist attack, we can only conclude that Abdullah supports what we regard as terrorism.

Nevertheless, Muslims in the West generally don't like being associated with terrorism, so Abdullah has tried to escape the obvious meaning of his words. He sent me the following paragraph to clarify his views for readers:

"The reason I am upset that you personally condemn the attack at Fort Hood, is for no other reason except that I am dismayed at the double standards I believe, have been displayed in the comments and mentallity of the individuals who write on this blog. If an individal, who attests to be Muslim, criminally kills civilians; you all condemn it (which we all would agree), but when a U.S. soldier kills civilians you do not highlight it here, or explain it as accidental. Furthermore, when a U.S marine kills an Iraqi or Afghan fighter, EVEN IN THEIR OWN HOMES, you reply that this is all fair in war, or that they deserved it because they are enemies of the U.S. BUT when a Muslim soldier kills U.S. soldiers for the same reasons, irrespective of the location, you cry foul and call such attacks 'Terrorist attacks' (to which you include insurgent attacks on military assets in Iraq and Afganistan too). It would seem that the Muslim cannot fight except that it is called Terrorism, and the American/Christian cannot fight except that it is called a just war. In regards the Fort Hood incident, I do not condone it, since although in principle soldiers were the target, the individual who perpetrated the attacks did so from a position of trust (i.e. he gave his oath to help the U.S. army initially with sincerity), which is not allowed in Islam (I can explain why separately), furthermore, it is deeply regrettible that civilians got caught in the fire, and I condemn all deliberate killing of civilians. Therefore, according to my adopted Islamic opinions, I do not condone the attack from the Islamic perspective, but I do feel that yourselves are acting hypocritically according to your own criteria, for condemning it."

Here Abdullah tries to pretend that he was only pointing out an inconsistency on our part. But this simply will not do. Abdullah specifically said he believes that military targets are viable during war. Since he agrees with attacks on American military bases, he obviously wasn't merely discussing our inconsistency.

Both passages from Abdullah attempt to show that, since America is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, attacks against U.S. military targets (such as Fort Hood) are viable. But this exposes Abdullah's true views. Major Nidal Malik Hasan is neither an Afghani nor an Iraqi. American soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because there are wars there. But Hasan is an American soldier. Thus, if Abdullah views Hasan's attack as justified by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he must believe that the United States is at war with Islam (for this is the only connection between Hasan and Afghanistan/Iraq). But if the United States is at war with Islam, then any Muslim is justified in attacking U.S. military bases right here in the United States.

Abdullah tries to get around this by saying that Hasan was wrong for pledging his allegiance to the U.S. and then fighting against the U.S. Thus, according to Abdullah's defense, it is wrong, immoral, and contrary to the teachings of Islam for a person to feign allegiance to a group in order to attack them. But here Abdullah can only defend himself by condemning Muhammad! Let's consider a few passages from the Hadith and Sira literature.

Sahih al-Bukhari 4037--Allah's Messenger said, "Who will kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Messenger?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Messenger! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes." Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a thing (i.e. to deceive Ka'b)." The Prophet said, "You may say it."

Ibn Ishaq, p. 367--The apostle said . . . "Who will rid me of Ibnu'l-Ashraf?" Muhammad b. Maslama, brother of the B. Abdu'l-Ashahal, said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." He said, "Do so if you can." So Muhammad b. Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfill it. The apostle said, "All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try." He said, "O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies." He answered, "Say what you like, for you are free in the matter."

As the story continues, we find Muslims (with the approval of Muhammad) pretending to be friends with Ka'b, until he trusts them. Once he trusts them, they brutally stab him to death. (They also chop off his head and bring it to Muhammad.)

What does this mean? It means that Muhammad allowed his followers to pretend to be friendly towards an enemy in an effort to win the enemy's trust, so that Muslims could successfully kill that enemy.

A similar event occurred during the Battle of the Trench. Nu'aym b. Mas'ud was from the tribes allied against Muhammad, but he converted to Islam. When he came to Muhammad, he was told: "You are only one man among us, so go and awake distrust among the enemy to draw them off us if you can, for war is deceit." Nu'aym then pretended to be loyal to the tribes allied against Muhammad, and he used their trust to turn them against one another.

None of this is surprising, of course. In the Hadith, we read:

Sahih al-Bukhari 3029--Allah's Messenger named: "War: Deceit."

Sahih al-Bukhari 3030--The Prophet said: "War is deceit."

In Sahih Muslim 6303, we read that Muslims are permitted to lie for several reasons: "in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Here Abdullah may object by pointing out that Hasan took an oath to protect America. But oaths are easily broken in Islam:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5518--Muhammad said: "By Allah, and if Allah will, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."

What does all of this mean? The only way for Abdullah to pretend that Islam condemns the Fort Hood Massacre was to claim that Islam would not allow a Muslim to lie in order to infiltrate an enemy camp. But in making this claim, Abdullah has condemned Muhammad and the early Muslim community!

Abdullah's comments are simply indefensible. He obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre and specifically said that he supports attacks against military targets. Now he claims that he said no such thing, and this is clearly an attempt to deceive us. Perhaps this is why he's employing new tactics in his effort to avoid accountability. His latest tactic is to threaten "Legal Jihad," for he states, "David Wood accused me of supporting Terrorism (something my Legal counsel has advised of his culpability on)."

So he's talking to his lawyer about my culpability! He's also threatened to blacklist me from future events with MDI (as if I'd ever give in to threats like this) if I don't back off. Well, Abdullah obviously defended the Fort Hood Massacre, which means that I'm only guilty of telling the truth. And I suppose this blog post gives a good indication of my thoughts on his demand that I back off or risk blacklisting.

I'll conclude with some advice to Abdullah.

(1) Be careful of what you say, for you might regret it later.
(2) If you say something embarrassing, admit it, apologize, and move on.
(3) Don't try to reinterpret your own words in order to deceive people about your obvious meaning.
(4) When someone points out something you've said, don't threaten them.
(5) Don't attack people that you're supposedly trying to reconcile with.
(6) Don't use your own misunderstandings of Christian scripture to attack Christians to whom you should be apologizing.

On the Proper and Improper Use of Extra-Biblical and Extra-Qur'anic Commentaries

I quote Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Abbas when I discuss the teachings of the Qur'an. Muslims quote Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas when they discuss the teachings of the Bible. Yet there is a massive difference between the way Christians use extra-Qur'anic sources and the way Muslims use extra-Biblical source.

To illustrate the difference, consider the following imaginary (yet altogether typical) dialogues.

DIALOGUE #1
CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!

DIALOGUE #2
MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.

Do you see the difference? When Christians appeal to Muslim commentators, it's to show that verses of the Qur'an mean what they say, and that Muslim attempts to reinterpret embarrassing verses are a modern phenomenon, often influenced by Western values. When Muslims appeal to Christian commentators, it's to show that verses of the Bible can't mean what they say, and that Christian attempts to follow what the Bible actually says are misguided.

Consider a few more illustrations.

(1) The Qur'an commands Muslims to beat rebellious wives (4:34). Westernized Muslims today say that this verse simply refers to a light, symbolic tapping with a toothbrush. Here Christians go to Muslim commentaries showing that the verse means exactly what it says, and Muslims reject the commentaries, choosing instead to go against the obvious meaning of the Qur'an.

(2) The Qur'an says that there is "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Since the Qur'an plainly declares that earlier verses are abrogated by conflicting later verses, it's obvious that 2:256 was abrogated by verses such as 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, and 9:123. But Muslims don't want to admit that the few peaceful teachings of the Qur'an have been abrogated, so they reinterpret abrogation, saying that it only applies to the Qur'an abrogating previous scriptures. Thus the Christian pulls out Tafsir Ibn Abbas, Tafsir Jalalayn, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir to show that abrogation applies to earlier verses of the Qur'an, and commentaries are produced to show that 2:256 has either been abrogated or that it only applies to "People of the Book" who are paying the Jizyah. At this point, Muslims reject all of their greatest commentators, ignore the Qur'anic context, pound their fists on the table, declare that 2:256 is valid towards all people, use 2:256 to reinterpret clear Qur'anic commands to violence, and finally declare that Islam is a religion of peace and that anyone who disagrees is an Islamophobe!

(3) According to the Qur'an, men can have sex with prepubescent girls (65:4). Though the verse clearly discusses girls who haven't yet reached the age of puberty, Westernized Muslim proclaim that it doesn't mean this at all. Here we consult Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Ibn Abbas, and Tafsir Jalalayn, and we find that all of them understood 65:4 to refer to sex with prepubescent girls (i.e. exactly what the verse says). Modern Muslims, however, don't want to accept this, and so they once again throw out their greatest commentators.

(4) The Bible commands husbands to love our wives as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25), to be ready to lay down our lives for them, and not to be harsh with them (Colossians 3:19). The Bible declares that both men and women are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Galatians 3:28). To show that these verses can't possibly mean what they say and that the Bible condemns women as the inferior sexual slaves of abusive men, Muslims go on to quote later Christian commentators who ignore the clear teachings of the Bible.

To sum up, Christians want to accurately report the meaning of both the Bible and the Qur'an, in order to allow people to make an informed choice between the two religions. Hence, Christians attempt to read both Christian and Muslim sources in context and to provide a clear account of what the religions teach. Muslims want to misrepresent both the Bible and the Qur'an in order to keep people from honestly assessing the evidence. Thus, Muslims distort the teachings of the Bible by appealing to extra-Biblical sources, and they reject extra-Qur'anic sources which declare that the Qur'an means what it says.

It could be useful to come up with some sort of rule about how to use sources outside of the Bible and the Qur'an. It might run as follows:

"Scripture is to be interpreted primarily by other scripture. That is, a verse is to be evaluated according to its context in the passage and in light of other verses in the text. If a verse is ambiguous, it should be interpreted based on clear verses addressing the same topic. Commentaries may be consulted here to provide the historical context, which reflects what the verse would have meant to the people to whom it was addressed. When someone attempts to deviate from the clear contextual meaning of a verse, commentaries should be provided to show that orthodox scholars prior to modern influence agreed with the clear contextual meaning, and that modern reinterpretations are therefore probably wrong. When a commentary presents an interpretation that conflicts with the clear contextual meaning, the commentary is to be rejected."

For some excellent examples of how these conflicting uses of extra-Biblical and extra-Qur'anic sources play out in debate, please watch our debate with Abdullah and Yahya on whether Islam is a religion of peace, as well as my debate with Abdullah on whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Pay attention to how sources are used. I haven't seen Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum yet, but I suspect that the same would apply to that debate. That is, I suspect that Mary Jo uses extra-Qur'anic sources to show that the Qur'an means what it says, and that Tabasum uses extra-Biblical sources in order to distort what Christianity actually teaches. Of course, this is simply a prediction based on my working hypothesis (which, in turn, is based on past observations). Anyone know whether my prediction is confirmed?

David and Nabeel at Apologetics Conference in Virginia!

Send Negeen to an Apologetics Conference!

All right. I only ask when it's important. Many of you remember Negeen. She's a convert from Islam to Christianity, she's super sharp, and she's interested in apologetics. We want to fly her to an apologetics conference in Virginia next month, where Nabeel, Mary Jo, Sam, Mike Licona, Tony Costa, Mark Mittelberg, and several others will be speaking. (I'll be debating an atheist at the end of the conference.) She can stay with a family while she's there, and I can cover her meals. But we need help covering her plane ticket and the registration fee. $400 will cover both. Let's support our sister! (Alternatively, if one of you has a bunch of frequent-flyer miles saved up, you could use them to get her ticket.)



If you missed Negeen's testimony when we posted it, here you go:

Sad, Sad, Sad

(NOTE: PLEASE READ THE UPDATES AT THE END OF THIS POST, AS NOT ALL OF MDI WAS INVOLVED IN THESE EVENTS.)

The Muslim Debate Initiative has posted their version of Mary Jo's debate with Tabasum. If you'd like a good introduction to Muslim ethics, I invite you to watch the intro. Notice that when we post debates, we don't attempt to bias people against speakers, even if we disagree with those speakers. Yet when MDI posts a debate, they find it necessary to spend several minutes attempting to discredit the opposition. MDI posts scenes of Mary Jo in a discussion with me, Robert Spencer, and Pamela Gellar, in an obvious attempt to focus Muslims' dislike for Spencer and me onto Mary Jo. The intent is to get Muslims so angry at Mary Jo that they will not listen to her arguments. But if you don't want people listening to her arguments, why even have the debates? Moreover, if MDI is satisfied with the debate as it stands, why try to bias people from the start? This is simply pathetic. MDI claims that they respect women, when they clearly show no respect for Mary Jo. I think I speak for several of us when I say that I'm done with the Muslim Debate Initiative.



On a different note, I can't imagine why they would attack Mary Jo for being on a program which claims that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy. Could she be thinking of passages like these:

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Muhammad said: "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 4068—The Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 2535—It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik 36.18.15—The Messenger of Allah said, “If someone changes his religion—then strike off his head!”

How dare this lying infidel Mary Jo suggest that Islam promotes the death penalty for apostasy! (For a fuller discussion of apostasy, click here.)

Anyone care to guess Mary Jo's impression of Muslims? The first time she was around a large group of Muslims, she was physically assaulted by three of them. (Note: The virtually universal Muslim response to these assaults was: "She deserved it, since she was with David and Nabeel.") Now Muslims post her debate, and they try to discredit her before the debate even starts. And Muslims wonder why Westerners are getting suspicious!

*****UPDATE***** I hear from Roger (Mary Jo's husband) that MDI UK denies responsibility for the video. If this is correct, then it seems that the Muslims from the Islamic center in Canada (friends of Tabasum?) have produced the video. Hopefully, we'll have this cleared up soon.

*****2ND UPDATE***** The video has been removed. I assume it will be reposted without the pre-debate attacks. Everything I know is second-hand, but it seems that most of the members of MDI were not aware of the attacks against Mary Jo and did not approve of the content. Based on the little information I have, the attacks appear to have come from Tabasum, her husband, and the Canadian Muslims, and have little or nothing to do with UK or US members of MDI.

Mary Jo Sharp Vs. Tabasum Hussain: "Women in the Bible and the Qur'an"

Uploading is taking a while, but I'll post the videos here as they become available. I haven't seen the debate yet, but I hear it went very well, and that both Christianity and Islam were well represented. Since this is the second formal debate for Mary Jo, and the first formal debate for Tabasum, I'm sure both would appreciate feedback.

OPENING STATEMENTS


1ST REBUTTALS


2ND REBUTTALS/Q&A


CONCLUSIONS

The Beauty of Islam