Who Was Muhammad?

My debate on Muhammad with Ali Ataie is now available at Amazon.com. The debate took place at UC Davis and was sponsored by the Muslim Student Association, Campus Crusade for Christ, and College Life. Ali and I discussed the violence in the early Muslim sources, Muhammad's relationship with Aisha, science in the Qur'an, and more.

Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Part Three

Bassam, you never cease to amaze me. You try to answer an objection and only manage to show that the objection has far more warrant than anyone had imagined. In my previous post, I tried to clarify your position by drawing some analogies. Since you had claimed that a woman who doesn’t dress according to Muslim regulations is partly responsible if she is raped, I attempted to show that this sort of reasoning, if correct, would apply to other situations (implying that practically every victim of a crime is worthy of blame). To see if you really believe your claim, I asked whether you would agree with the following parallel claim:

“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”

Interestingly, I thought you would agree that a person who parks his car in his driveway deserves no blame if his car is stolen, even though the car might not have been stolen if it had been covered with a tarp. Instead, you responded by saying that this example doesn’t do justice to the case of a woman who rejects Muslim clothing regulations. You even say that women who don’t dress according to Islamic law have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists!

Bassam said:

How logically fallacious could David’s examples be.

First, regarding the car example.

David’s example should been more like this…

“If you park your new car in the driveway, and you forgot to lock the door as you usually do and openly left your latptop and wallet on the car seat where everybody could see it as usual and your car and belongings then got stolen and the law of the country clearly states that you are not supposed to do so then you’re partly to blame.”

So if the person on a continuous basis makes himself or herself an easy target for thieves (just many women might do for rapists) and continually ignore the law of the country which states that citizens must always lock their doors and hide their personal belongings (just as the law of God commands the woman to dress up modestly) then I argue that yes, the person is party to blame. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE PERSON DESERVES IT OR THAT THE CRIMINAL IS JUSTIFIED. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE VICTIM COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE SITUATION BY TAKING CERTAIN PRECAUTIONS.

This is quite frightening, Bassam. Again, I assumed that you felt that a woman is to blame in the same manner as a man who leaves a shiny new car uncovered in his driveway. That is, they both leave something out in the open which might provide an evil person with an opportunity to do something wrong. (Notice, there’s no logical fallacy in what I said. I’ve taught logic courses in the past, Bassam, and I notice that you like to toss around these accusations without actually understanding them.) However, as your comment shows, you believe that a woman is far more culpable than I had imagined. Instead of comparing a woman in a miniskirt to a man who leaves something valuable where others may see it, you compare her to a man who leaves his car out in the open, unlocked, unguarded, with valuable possessions ripe for the taking! In other words, a man who leaves his valuables out in the open, where anyone can quite easily take them, is going out of his way to make the theft as easy as possible. And this is what you think about a woman who shows off her legs because she thinks they are pretty! You believe that she is doing everything in her power to make it as easy and as tempting as possible for a man to rape her! Needless to say, non-Muslims don’t generally feel this way, which is why we’re so repulsed by your comments. (And, given these comments, your claim that you aren’t saying that such a woman “deserves it” sounds hollow.)

Um Yaquub said that she would be frightened if you were her neighbor, and you took great offense at this. But you should try to understand the perspective of a person who hasn’t been taught since childhood that women who dress in a certain manner are (almost deliberately) making themselves “easy targets” for rapists. This would sound frightening to any woman.

You replied by saying that you wouldn’t want a Christian woman as a neighbor, since she might wear a miniskirt and tempt your son. But here we see a tremendous area of disagreement between our two camps. Human beings only learn to overcome temptation by confronting it and conquering it. I don’t want to keep my son locked in a room all his life just so he won’t sin. Rather, I want my son to achieve victory over temptation. All of my sons will grow up in the West, and they will certainly face temptation. But in the process, they will learn to deal with it. When a woman walks down the street in a miniskirt, my sons won’t go into a frenzy, because they will have learned to overcome their passions. The Muslim goal is to keep their sons from so much as seeing a woman. Then, when a Muslim teenager sees a woman without a burka for the first time (having been taught that such women have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists), he goes berserk, because he has never learned to control himself. (Indeed, I don’t see any emphasis in Islam on teaching Muslim men to control themselves. Instead, Muslim men learn how to control women.)

This is why there’s such a tremendous problem with rape among Muslims in the West. I can’t imagine why you don’t see it, when the problem can be seen in your own words above!

Bassam said: “Show me narrations that state that the Muslims RAPED their slave girls. I DON’T’ WANT YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SITUATIONS OR YOUR OPINIONS, SHOW ME THE PROOF. IF YOU DON’T THEN YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU MUST RETRACT THIS STATEMENT AND APOLOGISE.”

This was a nice try on your part. You want me to show you a narration saying that Muslims “raped” their slave girls. But you know as well as I do that in Islam, a female captive is the property of her owner, and he is free to have sex with her (since Muhammad granted men this right in the Qur’an). Hence, Muslims don’t view sex with captives as “rape,” regardless of whether the captives consent or not. This, of course, is a significant area of disagreement between Muslims and the West. In America, we would say that any sexual act in which the woman does not consent is an act of rape. Muhammad’s teachings, however, have kept the Muslim world in horrible darkness.

Keeping in mind the fact that Muslims would not use the word “rape” in describing sex with unwilling women, it is quite easy to meet your challenge. I know that you are familiar with the women of Banu al-Mustaliq. Muhammad and his followers killed the men, then took the women captive. The Muslims were a long way from home, and they wanted to have sex with the women. However, they also wanted to sell the women into slavery, so they didn’t want to get the women pregnant. They therefore decided to practice coitus interruptus, where the man pulls out his penis before ejaculating in the woman. They brought the entire matter before Muhammad, who had no objections to the Muslims having sex with the women. Indeed, Muhammad’s only recommendation was that the men shouldn’t use coitus interruptus!

So what do we have here? Muhammad and his followers slaughter the men of Banu al-Mustaliq and take the women as captives. Soon, the Muslims are going to sell the women into slavery. But the men want to have sex with their captives first, since the Qur’an guarantees their right to do so. We know, then, that the Muslims had sex with these women, whose families had just been slaughtered by Muslims and who were about to become slaves at the hands of Muhammad. The only question for us is whether these women wanted to have sex with the men who had annihilated their husbands and fathers, or whether they didn’t want to have sex with these men. I think it’s obvious that the women of Banu al-Mustaliq wouldn’t have wanted to have sex with the Muslims, especially since the men were about to sell them into slavery (where they would likely be further sexually abused). Hence, Muhammad granted his men the right to have sex with women who would have been repulsed at the thought of having sex with their Muslim captors, and this qualifies as rape. Your challenge, Bassam, is easily met. (For plenty of references, see “Muhammad and the Female Captives.”)

On a different matter, you continue to argue that Isaiah 3:17 talks about women being raped because they were haughty. You claim that “most” modern versions translate the passage as “secret parts.” I have eighteen English translations of the Old Testament, and only nine of them translate the passage as “secret parts.” The other half use some variation of “laying the head bare.” You claim that the word “scalp” isn’t in the text, but I must point out that (and here’s the key) neither is “secret parts”! The passage simply refers to something being laid bare. Some translators conclude that the passage is saying that the women’s bodies will be laid bare, while others (more literally) translate the verse as saying that the women’s heads will be laid bare. Notice, Bassam, that this latter translation fits the context much better, and is therefore the preferred translation. The women were rejecting the teachings of God, and had even become proud of it. To show their high status, they were wearing all sorts of ornaments on their heads. It certainly makes sense to think that Isaiah 3:17 says that their heads would be laid bare. But regardless of what you think, you can’t use a clearly ambiguous passage to support your argument just because you want to feel better about the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations.

You also claim that I am here doing the same thing I accused you of doing when you wanted to deny Muslims their right to beat their wives. But the situations are hardly comparable. I pointed out that Isaiah 3:17 may be translated in various ways, and that the most literal translation of the verse (as well as many others) has nothing to do with women being raped. Is that the case with Surah 4:34? Do half of our translations say nothing about beating women? On the contrary, all of my English translations guarantee a husband the right to beat his wife if she gets out of line. But you ignore the obvious meaning of the verse simply because you know that it is extremely offensive (and, perhaps, because deep down you have a better moral outlook than Muhammad). Again, the two cases are not the same.

Bassam said: “David keeps saying ‘thanks to Muhammad’, yet he is never able to prove that it is so.”

Perhaps I’m not able to prove it to you, since you’re quite unwilling to see any problems in Muhammad’s teachings. But to any non-Muslim, it is quite clear that many of the problems we see in the Muslim world result from the teachings of Muhammad. For instance, when women are raped, they are rarely able to establish this in court. Why? Because Muhammad declared that a woman’s testimony is only half as valuable as a man’s. Hence, when a woman says, “That man raped me!” and the man says, “No, she’s just a prostitute,” the courts must give higher status to the man’s testimony. The woman, of course, goes to jail (or takes some lashes).

And, again, we know that Muhammad allowed Muslims to have sex with their female captives, regardless of whether the captives were willing or not. This is certainly relevant to the way many Muslims view rape in the world today. Muhammad showed how infidels were to be treated. Is it a surprise that Muslims rape infidels today?

Bassam said: “You can check Sunan Abu Dawud, Book Book 38, Number 4366 in which the Prophet commands a rapist to be killed.”

I had a reason for asking you to share the details of this rape, Bassam. And yet you left out the details. Notice (1) that the woman was a Muslim in good standing, (2) that she was raped while praying, and (3) that the man confessed that he had raped her. No one is saying that Islam does not punish rapists who confess that they have raped good Muslim women during prayer. What we are saying is that Islam has practically nothing to say about a Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim (or even a Muslim) woman and denies his crime. In fact, in the Muslim world, it is the woman who will typically be punished in such situations.

If you’d like to continue, Bassam, I’d be happy to. We can have “Bassam Zawadi on Rape,” Parts Four, Five, and Six. But hopefully you are learning that, at least in the eyes of people who are able to critically evaluate Muhammad’s commands, Islam is full of offensive, repulsive, horrendous teachings.

More Bassam Zawadi on Rape

In my last post, I pointed out Bassam’s frightening comment that governments are luring men to rape women by not implementing stricter clothing laws. Bassam’s claim is quite consistent with Muslim views. The problem, of course, is that because of this twisted view of women, many Muslims around the world see a woman’s dress as an invitation to rape. Moreover, Muslim authorities in many countries simply will not punish rapists. Bassam replied to my post, and I will address his comments.

Bassam said: “Did I say that if women who dress shamelessly lure men to rape them and are responsible? Yes they are partly responsible for if they didn't dress shamelessly then they wouldn't have enticed the rapist to attack them. This is basic logic that no one can argue with.”

So Bassam admits that he is claiming that a woman is “partly responsible” if she is raped, provided she was dressed immodestly, since the rape may not have occurred had she been dressed in Muslim garb. Now compare Bassam’s view to the following claims:

“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”

“If you’re black, and you go to a neighborhood full of white supremacists, and they kill you, it’s partly your fault, since you wouldn’t have been killed if you hadn’t gone to their neighborhood.”

If Bassam really believes what he says about women (and I know he does), then he should agree with these other claims.

Bassam said: “Did I say that THE RAPIST IS NOT TO BLAME? This is absurd. The Prophet punished the rapist with death. It is the rapist's fault for not lowering his gaze as commanded by God in Surah 24 and he has no authority to 'punish' a woman for dressing immodestly for this is vigilantism. It is the government's duty to ensure that women dress appropriately in the society and they definately don't take measures such as rape in order to do that.”

(1) “Did I say that the rapist is not to blame?” I never said that you claimed this. My point is that this is what happens in the Muslim world. Muslim men see a woman who isn’t dressed according to Muslim standards, and they gang-rape her. The woman complains to the police. The police talk to the men, who say, “We thought the woman was a prostitute, because of the way she was dressed.” Since the testimony of women isn’t equal to that of a man in Islam, the police must side with the rapists. Best case scenario, the men will be charged with fornication. But they won’t be charged with rape. Most likely, they won’t be charged with anything. The woman, if she is in the right Muslim country, may even go to jail. Like it or not, Bassam, this is what happens over, and over, and over in the Muslim world (thanks to Muhammad).

(2) “The Prophet punished the rapist with death.” Bassam, please give readers the details and sources regarding Muhammad’s command that rapists be killed. Of course, you have to admit that it was perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rape their female captives (since Muhammad himself allowed this). And that’s the problem. Muhammad definitely allowed rape in certain situations. Why not rape a woman who needs to be taught a lesson?

(3) You claimed that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce clothing restrictions. But your government does enforce clothing restrictions—by allowing men to rape women who don’t follow the rules. You can’t deny this, Bassam. You know that’s what happens in your country. If a woman is dressed immodestly, and she is raped, the government will ignore her cries for justice, just as it will ignore the pleas of a woman who is constantly assaulted by her husband (thanks to Muhammad).

Bassam said: “What I find most interesting is that the very thing that David is repulsed by in his article is found in his Bible. For the God of the Bible allegedly commanded women to be raped because they were haughty!!! They used to be proud of their adornments and therefore God said that they asked for it!!!”

Bassam gave a link to this article, which argues that in Isaiah 3:17 God punishes haughty women with rape. According to the translation in the article, Isaiah 3:17 says: "Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts." The article goes on to argue that “discover their secret parts” means that the women will be raped.

The problem here is that this argument is (perhaps deliberately) based on an outdated and flawed translation of Isaiah. Consider two modern translations, the first being the most popular English translation, the second being the most literal English translation:

New International Version: "Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald."

New American Standard Bible: "Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs, And the LORD will make their foreheads bare."

Is there anything about rape here? Not at all! And this makes it all the more shocking when Bassam triumphantly comments: "I PROVED IT FROM YOUR BIBLE THAT WOMEN WERE RAPED FOR BEING HAUGHTY. SHOW ME THIS SAME DISPICABLE THING IN ISLAM."

Show him the same thing in Islam? Just watch the news, Bassam. It happens all the time (thanks to Muhammad).

Bassam Zawadi on Rape: Are Women in Miniskirts Asking for It?

One of the most frightening things about Islam is that even moderate Muslims have some very radical views. For instance, we saw recently that Bassam Zawadi believes that it’s okay for Muslims to invade countries (causing a great deal of bloodshed) which prohibit the preaching of Islam. More recently, Bassam has repeated the common Muslim charge that women who dress immodestly are asking for rape. He said in the "comments" section:

“You have to understand that Western Law easies and facilitates these kind of things to occur. Allowing women to dress up immodestly and acting shamelessly lures men to rape them and promotes fornication and adultery which can result in Aids. If these things occur in Muslim countries then its because they got influenced from the West and not from Islamic law. I am not talking about the people but talking about the governing system.”

It seems, however, that Bassam has modified the claim. Normally, Muslims claim that women who wear, for example, miniskirts, are inviting men to rape them. But Bassam is criticizing governments. He appears to be saying that if a government does not force women to dress according to Muslim standards, the government is “luring” men to rape the women.

The most important thing to keep in mind here is that Bassam is not a radical Muslim. He is quite moderate in his views, and he lives in a country that is very moderate (United Arab Emirates). But even so, Bassam, like many other Muslims, associates clothing styles with an invitation to rape. In the eyes of Muslims, if a woman wears certain clothing, and she is raped, it's her own fault. She has no right to complain. In the West, we blame the criminal rather than the victim. In the Muslim world, the rape victim is often viewed as the criminal.

For instance, in the United Arab Emirates (again, quite moderate), a woman named Touria Tiouli was gang-raped by three Muslim men. She reported the assault to the authorities, but the rapists claimed that Tiouli was a prostitute, and she was promptly charged with fornication. You can read the results of the trial here. Notice the pattern in the article. Some men asked if Tiouli needed a ride home. Since she agreed to get into the car with the men, she was inviting them to rape her. (It should be noted that Tiouli came from France, where getting a ride home does not qualify as grounds for rape.)

We see this pattern quite frequently among Muslims. Here’s an article about one of the Muslim brothers who went on a gang-raping rampage in Australia. He justified his crimes by saying that it was the victims’ fault, since they were willing to go along with the Muslims to a party. Apparently, if a Muslim invites you to a party, and you agree, you’re a bad girl, so you deserve to be raped.

Sheikh Qaradawi has summed up the Muslim position here. If a woman is raped because she was dressed immodestly, she is guilty of provoking the rape. I confess that I find this view absolutely repulsive.

Islam is the “Religion of Blame.” If a woman is raped, it’s her fault, not the rapist’s. If Muslims kill innocent people, it’s the West’s fault, not the terrorists’. Take another look at Bassam’s words above, and you’ll see that he not only blames rape on a woman’s clothing, he also blames the West for rape in the Muslim world! (He says: “If these things occur in Muslim countries then its because they got influenced from the West and not from Islamic law.”)

This is how Muslims get by. Whenever a problem is found in Islam, Muslims point a finger somewhere else. Change will not come until Muslims take a good look at the real source of their problems: Muhammad, the Qur’an, and the Hadith.

For more on rape in Islam, see:

“Rape in Islam: Blaming the Victim”

“Rape of Unbelievers in Islam”

“Muhammad and the Female Captives”

Letter to a Muslim (Part One)

Hello, Fellow Traveller!

What do I mean by addressing you like that? Well, a traveller is on his way from a point of departure to a destination. Perhaps more explicit, you and I and everybody else on this planet started out in life at some time and place – and travel on the course of life till the point of death.

I agree that is not a very pleasant thought, but that’s the way it is.

May I suppose that you have a goal in and for your life? Well, I have one. More than one, in fact. But one is excessively more important than all the others. I’m sure you know what I am talking about. I like to spend my eternity in the Presence of God. One calls that heaven. It doesn’t take much imagination to assume that you want the same.

Therefore the most important issue in our lives is to make sure we get there – never mind the cost! I am not talking about suicide bombing here, mind you. Shall we do it together?

You are a Muslim. I am a Christian. We do not follow the same route. In fact you probably think I am miles off course. The reason for that is – pardon for being so blunt – that you reject the Bible, the Book in which you are compelled to believe. Surah 2:177, the foundation of iman, demands that. I want to assume that you are not a hypocrite like so many who claim to believe and yet do not.

I think I know the answer to what you now think. You think: “I do believe in the taurat, the zabur and the injil, but not as they appear in today’s Bibles. These have been corrupted and changed!” Have they???

Muslims who propagate that the Bible was corrupted overlook expediently the fact that eminent Muslim theologians like al-Tabari (died AD 855), al-Bukhäri (died AD 870), as well as al-Ghazzali (died AD 1111) believed in the authenticity of the then existing (Greek) Gospel text. And that is the very message the Qur’an teaches:

“Say ye: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses, and Jesus, and that given to all prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them.” (Surah al-Baqara 2:136).

“It was We who revealed the Law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light . . . if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers . . . We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: Therein was guidance and light . . . a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. Judge what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires (Surah Mâ-ida 5:47, 49.50, 52).

“Say: we believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you” (Surah al-Ankabût 29:46). (Read also Surah 3:2-3, 4:136 and 10:37 and 94).

It is quite clear that at the time when the Qur’an was written, nobody questioned the authenticity of the Bible. Anyone contradicting it now will not only contradict the Qur’an, but will also have to provide an answer to the following questions:

WHO changed or corrupted the Bible?

WHEN was the Bible corrupted?

WHERE is the original, or evidence that shows that there was such an original?

If the Bible would have been corrupted before or at the time of Muhammad, the Qur’an would hardly have spoken of the Bible in the way it does. Had the Bible been changed or corrupted afterwards, the many existing old manuscripts that predate Muhammad by hundreds of years would have given proof of that fact. As it is, the content of these manuscripts do not vary from the Bibles of our time.

We have just read from the Qur’an that the Bible is God’s Word. We should add, also from the Qur’an, that “no man can change the words of God” (Surah 6:34 and 10:64). So, what are Muslim critics of the Bible doing?

Some Muslims argue that the Qur’an does state that the Bible was distorted. They quote:

“Ye People of the Book Why do ye clothe truth with falsehood, and conceal the truth, while ye have knowledge?” (Surah Al-Imran 3:71).

“There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is part of the Book, but it is not part of the Book” (Surah Al-Imran 78).

These passages say nothing more than that the Bible, rendered by the Jews in public, as the context suggests, was distorted with their tongues, not with their pens. Else the Qur’an would not suggest that Muslims should ask the People of the Book about the content of the Bible:

“Ask of those who possess the Message” (Surah al-Anbiyāa, 21:7).

We may well ask, why do so many Muslims believe that the Bible was corrupted, when history, archaeology and the Qur’an deny this?

Never heard about this? Well, you have now. And now you will have to decide whether you like to really enquire about God and what He revealed of Himself – or be a good hypocrite.

Greetings from

Theophilus

Submission

A Muslim woman prays: “The verdict that has killed my faith and love is in Your holy book. Faith in You, submission to You, feels like self-betrayal. Oh Allah, giver and taker of life, You admonish all who believe to turn towards You in order to attain bliss. I have done nothing my whole life but turn to You. And now that I pray for salvation, under my veil, You remain silent, like the grave I long for.”

This video is pretty intense. In a way, it serves as a double-criticism of Islam. Written by a former Muslim, the video is a condemnation of the treatment of women in the Muslim world. However, Theo van Gogh, the director of the film, was killed by a Muslim for his role in Submission, so the video is also a reminder of Islam’s inability to tolerate criticism.

Muhammad Bouyeri shot van Gogh numerous times, slashed his throat, and plunged a knife into his chest, all because of a video that was critical of Islam. However, let no one think that Bouyeri was simply a radical Muslim on the fringe of Islam, for the Prophet of Islam himself ordered his followers to kill those who criticized Islam through the arts. (For more on this, see “Muhammad’s Dead Poets’ Society.”)

In her book Infidel, Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who wrote the film) responds to her critics: “I am told that Submission is too aggressive a film. Its criticism of Islam is apparently too painful for Muslims to bear. Tell me, how much more painful is it to be these women, trapped in that cage?” (p. 350).

Tanveer Ahmed: "Islam Must Face Its Uncomfortable Truths"

Here’s a nice, short article in which Tanveer Ahmed says that Islam itself is fueling acts of terrorism:

“Islam Must Face Its Uncomfortable Truths”

It’s interesting to note, however, that Ahmed appeals only to Muslim theology, and not to the history of Muhammad. I find the latter far more important for understanding the role of violence in Islam. When we read a verse in the Qur’an that sounds incredibly violent, we must admit that many Muslims will reinterpret the verse. But it is far more difficult to reinterpret historical facts. For a sample of Muhammad’s violent history, see my article “Murdered by Muhammad.”