Wednesday, November 5, 2008

13-Year-Old Rape Victim Stoned to Death (Welcome to Sharia)

Thirteen-year-old Aisha was raped by several Muslims. Unfortunately for her, the Qur'an makes her powerless to bring her accusers to justice (unless, of course, she has four male witnesses to support her claim--24:13). Poor Aisha tried anyway, however. She told the Muslim authorities that she had been raped, but since she couldn't produce four male Muslim witnesses to support her claim, the Muslim authorities accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death by stoning. Aisha was buried up to her head and stoned by fifty Muslims. Nurses dug her out of the hole to see if she was alive. When they determined that Aisha was still alive, she was again buried and stoned. No one has lifted a finger against the Muslims who raped her, but thousands of rape victims across the Muslim world understand her plight. Welcome to Islam, my friends. READ MORE. READ EVEN MORE.

(Yes, I know, Bassam and Sami, before you comment, that I shouldn't draw attention to this, or say that it has something to do with Islam. Shame on me for shining a light on the fruit of your religion.)

39 comments:

A.Ammari said...

If there are no four witnesses to support her claim of rape, then there are also no four witnesses to support their claim of adultery, as Islamic Shariah requires four witnesses regardless of whether it is rape or adultery. So what was it that let them decide to kill her? And correct me if I am mistaken but shouldn't they use whipping instead of stoning if they want to apply Shariah since the poor child wasn't married?(Sorry I couldn't imagine a 13 years old married child that's why I base an assumption that she is unmarried) This also drives me to ask: What if there were eight witnesses, with four claiming it is a rape, and four it is an adultery?To which four should Somalia (or ... whatever) listen to? How Pathetic.

David Wood said...

"If there are no four witnesses to support her claim of rape, then there are also no four witnesses to support their claim of adultery"

Confession also counts. By claiming that she had been raped, she was admitting that she had had sex. Since she had had sex, yet couldn't prove that she had been raped, she was guilty of at least fornication.

"Sorry I couldn't imagine a 13 years old married child that's why I base an assumption that she is unmarried"

I don't know whether she was married, but girls in Muslim countries are married far earlier than this.

Sami Zaatari said...

weclome to the world of right wing Christian fundies, use one incident to demonize the religion of almost 2 billion people.

Myself and Bassam do not support this, nor we condone it, we have spoken against such things on many occasions.

Yet Wood supports his filthy Bible which calls for the rapist to marry the rape victim, oh yes now David will shout out in shame THATS THE OT THATS THE OT NANANANANANA NOT FOR ME!!!!!!!! go burn that book and condemn it then, the book may not be for you, but why dont you condemn it then? welcome to the world of Christian fundamentalists. :)

Sami Zaatari said...

here is the fruit of Christianity:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081105/ts_nm/us_afghan_violence 40 dead Muslim civillians.

now watch Wood scream THESE ARE NOT CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!! although Bush and the people who organized the war evoked Biblical passages when he entered Afghanistan, and the majority of these American terrorist soldiers profess to be Christians. Welcome to the love and peace of Christianity.

David Wood said...

Sami,

I knew I'd get your attention. Now instead of ignoring me for the millionth time, please give me a straight answer (I know this is difficult for you to do). Should apostates be killed anywhere in the world today, or was the murder of apostates something that only applied to spies during the time of Muhammad?

Now for a short response to your completely illogical objection. Muhammad allowed his followers to rape their captives. When Muslim see a woman not obeying Sharia law, they conclude that this woman may be taken captive. Muhammad also said that a sexual sin can only be proved by the testimony of four good Muslims (effectively making it impossible for women to prove that they have been raped, unless there happened to be four good Muslims standing by watching). These teachings are having an impact on the world today. Thousands of women suffer in Muslim prisons for "adultery" and "fornication," despite the fact that these women are rape victims (so much for this being a lone incident). Some of these rape victims are murdered for being rape victims, all because Muhammad made it impossible to prove that they have been raped. So you see, my young friend, I'm not condemning a billion Muslims. I'm condemning Muhammad and the Qur'an.

Now where, may I ask, are people suffering for following the teachings of Christianity? Again, women are suffering across the Muslim world because of Muslims who follow the Qur'an. Please show me where people are suffering because of Christians following the Bible (but don't forget to answer my first question).

Sami Zaatari said...

you got my attention because your trying to be smart by mentioning me in the brackets, if you didnt i wouldnt have commented at all.

as for Muhammad (AS) allowing Muslims to rape the right hand captives, you got refuted and debunked on this point during our first debate and you never once established your point, but hey if you want to live in fantasy land then by all means continue.

And again, your not so Holy Bible calls for the rapist to marry the rape victim, YECKH! you support that, for if you did not then you would say 'Ok Sami, i cannot support the OT on this, it was wrong, and i condemn and apologize for it, no rape victim must ever marry her rapist, whether it be now, or then, i apologize'. Now until you make that comment David then you have NO PLACE to comment on rape, its almost too funny!

David: Islam is so bad you know? it allows Muslims to rape women, but hey become a Christian where my God says rapists must marry their rape victim and pay a fine of 50 bucks, yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh praise the cross!

Muslim: erm

:)

as for women in Muslim countries suffering due to rape etc, this isnt because of religion, but because of backward traditions and cultures which have these crazy honor issues. Wood Islam makes it cyrstal clear that the rape victim is to not be punished, but the rapist is to be subjected to any of these punishments:

lashing, banishment from the land, crucifixtion, or amputation.

No where does Islam call for women to be punished for rape, i repeat its backward traditional honor feelings. the same for honor killings.

Islamic scholars call on young Muslims to marry the rape victims, so they can be consoled and so on, not murder them.

And no, it is not impossible for her to prove her case, you assumed it is by your false understanding, your false INTENTIONAL understanding that is.

Where are Christians following because of Christianity, :) rwanda and democratic republic of congo, each where the catholic church in that area justified the worst genocide since WW2. offcourse you will say thats not biblical Christianity, which im afraid is a false statement by you since everyone who watches our Christianity peace debate will see it is completely biblicaly justified.

:-) now go make your excuses.

David Wood said...

Wow Sami! You surpass even my expectations for misrepresentation and evasion.

First, you once again dodged the issue on the killing of apostates. Are you ashamed of your view? Are you worried that Muslims will disagree with you because they know you're wrong? You've got to stand up for what you believe.

Second, if I recall correctly, your response to Muhammad and his men raping their female captives was that the women wanted sex from the Muslims (who just slaughtered their husbands, fathers, and brothers). Trust me, every non-Muslim who watches that debate is disgusted by your absurd, insulting response.

Third, your argument in our debate on violence in Christianity was that it's not a sin to follow the Old Testament; hence, Christians can follow the Old Testament. There are multiple problems here. First, no one is following the Old Testament in Rwanda. Apart from this, I completely refuted your reasoning. The Old Testament says "Eye for eye and tooth for tooth." In the NT, we're specifically told not to follow this law. Your claim, I remind you, is that it's not a sin to follow something in the OT. So you would say that it's okay for a CHRISTIAN to take eye for eye and tooth for tooth, despite the fact that Christians are commanded not to do this!!! Do you have any idea how absurd you sound to anyone except your fourteen-year-old Muslim fans? So the fact remains. You couldn't show that Christians are called to violence anywhere, ever, in our debate, and you can't show anywhere in the world where people are suffering because of Christianity. All you can do is continue to misrepresent the facts, which is all you seem capable of.

Fourth, you say that Islam doesn't command that rape victims should be killed. But you missed the point. Killing rape victims is the natural result of Muhammad's teachings. Muhammad taught that adulteresses are to be stoned to death. Muhammad also taught that a sexual sin can only be proven by (a) confession, or (b) producing four witnesses. So women get raped, and they can't produce four witnesses. Unless the man confesses, the woman is out of luck. If she's smart, she'll keep quiet, which is the only way she can escape with her life. If she complains (or if she gets pregnant as a result of the rape), she'll be found guilty of adultery and stoned to death. You say that women can prove that they've been raped. Please explain how this can be done, APPEALING TO SHARIA LAW ONLY.

Knock yourself out, my young friend. You're becoming quite the apologist for Islam. Just be careful of what you say. I know that you're ashamed of your views.

VJ said...

i must say that sami has lost it to david wood after losing previous 2 debates..so we now here the desperation regarding the bible.

Yet Wood supports his filthy Bible which calls for the rapist to marry the rape victim, oh yes now David will shout out in shame THATS THE OT THATS THE OT NANANANANANA NOT FOR ME!!!!!!!! go burn that book and condemn it then,

now sami is going to condemn the book which was confirmed in his own so called book of god..then he will say its corrupt..lol i wonder why allah couldn't preserve the Torah and ingel when the god of the bible could preserve it through people who have got themselves killed for the sake of the gospel.
SAMI DOESN'T WANT TO CONDEMN THE RAPE NEITHER THE STONING,NOR IS HE CONDEMNING THE QURAN,,,HE WANT TO JUMP TO CONDEMNING THE BIBLE.
WOW NOW WE SHOULD SAY WELCOME TO THE MUSLIM WORLD.
PATHETIC INDEED

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

i must say that sami has lost it to david wood after losing previous 2 debates..so we now here the desperation regarding the bible.

LMAO, if you say so! I guess he lost to Nabeel too huh? (When will David post that? it's been on youtube for months!)

now sami is going to condemn the book which was confirmed in his own so called book of god..then he will say its corrupt..lol i wonder why allah couldn't preserve the Torah and ingel when the god of the bible could preserve it through people who have got themselves killed for the sake of the gospel.

Which people? the ones that interpolated new passages into scripture only for those not to corrolate with manuscript evidence today and subsequently be taken out? The ones that added the Shepard of Hermes to the Early Codices? Wow, that really is preservation and integrity.

SAMI DOESN'T WANT TO CONDEMN THE RAPE NEITHER THE STONING,NOR IS HE CONDEMNING THE QURAN,,,HE WANT TO JUMP TO CONDEMNING THE BIBLE.
WOW NOW WE SHOULD SAY WELCOME TO THE MUSLIM WORLD.
PATHETIC INDEED


Nope he just wants Professor Wood to turn on his own inconsistensy Detector for once.

Elisha Kai said...

Honestly would I like to be a Muslim after reading all this--nope, if I was, I would burry me head in shame!

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

Sami, you completely miss the entire argument that David is trying to make. He doesn’t say that Islam condones women to be raped. He says that women have no chance of justice when they are raped because of the requirement from your pretend-prophet and your pretend-god that the testimony of a women holds no weight in court because women are too stupid (see Al-Bukhari!) to be taken seriously and there have to be four male witnesses to the rape. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to prove that she has been the victim of rape and in the process very easy for men to get away with it. Name me a woman that has been so lucky that she could actually produce four witnesses to her rape.

This backward requirement of four witnesses was installed by your prophet Muhammad because he wanted to acquit his extremely young plaything Ayesha from that charge that was labelled against her. Notice that the requirement was uttered AFTER THE FACT, as those revelations were usually delivered after the fact! Because there were a few witnesses and they couldn’t get her convicted, Muhammad got a revelation (after the fact) acquitting her from the charge that was levelled against her. And then Allah starts complaining about why the muslims didn’t investigate the matter thoroughly and why they didn’t immediately produce four witnesses. For one, Allah should have known that that requirement of four witnesses wasn’t established yet, that’s why they didn’t produce them. Number two, why did Allah yet again wait with his “relevation” until after it was clear that there couldn’t have been made a case against Ayesha based on the witnesses at hand?

The answer is obvious: Had Allah convicted or accused her of anything and it turned out that the opposite was true, then Muhammad would have been exposed as a charlatan and Allah as a myth. That’s why!
Allah is merely the god of conveniences.

Nakdimon said...

The most laughable thing that Sami said in his debate with David on violence in Christianity was that Sami claimed that the teachings of Christianity was only peaceful because Christians were the underdogs and that Jesus coming back to judge mankind is proof that Christianity’s violent teachings will be uncovered once Christians have the upper hand. LOL

That is EXACTLY what Islam is doing and it isn’t ashamed of doing so. When it’s weak it’s a religion of peace. When it’s strong it’s a religion of PIECE. As I have said many a times before: Islam condemns in others what it is most guilty of!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I have not watched the debate yet. Did Zaatari actually defend the action of Muhammad and his followers when the raped female captives, to sound as if the these victimized women lusted after the killers who genocided their fathers, husbands, brothers, sons?

That is the most ridicolous interpretation I have ever heard so far.

Firstly it contradicts common logic, just imagine every raped victim actually surrendering to the crime because of lust. Imagine having your house broken into and your entire family killed before your eyes and then lusting sexually after the killer who wiped out your family. This is virtually sick reasoning.

Secondly, where in the rape passages are we informed that these female victims lusted after Muhammad's companions? And thirdly if they did, was it not morally wrong to engage in such fornication and adultary, since most of these Muslims had wives and female slaves at home?

Much like the claim that Jews in the Second world war happily and freely marched into Auswitch and begged to the gassed.

Are we then to say that every attrocity on Muslims whether in Palestine or Iraq may not be a crime on humanity, but rather the soldiers fullfilling the desire of their victims?

No I don't think so, and I neither do I believe that the female captives raped by Muhammad's followers, with the permission of Allah and his prophet were caused by victimized women longing to fornicate with their Muslim supressors.

I have to admit though that this interpretation of Zaatari sounds better than the one I heard on Pal-talk last year. A Muslim by the name 'Debate-the-hate' tried to convince me that the rape of female prisoners was not wrong because it was not rape, it was a divine right given by Allah to these Muslims.

Well, I wonder if Muslims would call it an act of evil or a mere right if a supressor of muslims raped Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, sisters--now of a sudden the Muslims tell us this resorts to break of human rights.

And I agree! It's wrong, its evil! But lets also then turn toward the rape passages with the same disgust and conclude that Islam is not a religion of peace.

VJ said...

MR Yahya Hayder Seymour SEEMS TO BE A COMPANION OF SAMI ZAATARI,SINCE HES VERY WELL INTERESTED IN DEFENDING THE INCONSISTENT MUSLIM FAITH,SEEN FROM THE PROFILE AS A EX-CHRISTIAN,MAKES ME THINK WHY DIDN'T ALLAH TEACH HIM TO THINK..THE ANSWER IS JUST BECAUSE HE DOSENT SEEM TO EXIST.


Which people? the ones that interpolated new passages into scripture only for those not to corrolate with manuscript evidence today and subsequently be taken out? The ones that added the Shepard of Hermes to the Early Codices? Wow, that really is preservation and integrity.

THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY...ALLAH COULD NOT PRESERVE THE TORAH AND INGEEL( ALLEGEDLY FROM INTERPOLATION)BECAUSE HE WAS INCAPABLE TO DO IT..WHEN HE TALK ABOUT MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE DO I NEED TO REMIND HIM OF THE 24000 MANUSCRIPTS IN POSSESSION TODAY, SO CAN HE PUT FORWARD MORE MANUSCRIPT THAN THIS TO PROVE HIS CLAIM??
SO I INVITE MR Yahya Hayder Seymour
TO SHOW US THE TORAH AND THE INGEEL THAT THE QURAN CONFIRMED ALONG WITH MORE MANUSCRIPTS THAN THOSE IN OUR POSSESSION
WHY DOESN'T HE LOOK AT THE INTEGRITY OF HIS OWN BOOK WHOSE ORIGINALS WERE BURNED,MIND YOU THESE WERE THE ONES THEY CALLED HOLY BOOKS.
MAYBE NEED GOD TO OPEN HIS MIND .WELL I WOULD INVITE HIM ONCE AGAIN TO THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

PEACE BWU

David Wood said...

Here's a quick question for Yahya. Yahya, did you watch my last two debates with Sami? Please pronounce him the winner (with a straight face). I want you to say it.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I would rather say: so what if The Shepherd of Hermas and Didache are found in early codixes? We know that Christians considered these books as authoritative (read the church fathers) and they even read them next to Scripture, but not as a part of Scripture.

Exactly, early Christian valued certain books with authority yet not as canonical, and they had no problem keeping these together in a codex.

I guess Muslims misunderstand something of siginficance here: The Bible is no a book, it is books! So who cares if a codex includes a book that the early Christians considered authoritative?

To Muslims this seems problematic, especially since they attempt to apply their own hermeneutic and mindset into the perception about Jewish and Christian Scripture, whereas to Christians we don't see the problem.

Much like the Old Testament apocrypha being found in the Vulgate, what are the Muslims crying about? We know that the Jews loved the apocrypha but did not consider it Scripture. The early Christians did not consider the apocrypha as Scripture either, and it entered the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible) fairly late. Why should that effect anything?

If a Muslims is to prove Bible corruption he needs to provide historical evidence, through explicit confirmation and accessable data that the earliest Christians in the First century, possibly the apostles themselves, sat down and corrupted the entire material willingly,

the problem then remains of course why we have four gospels;

secondly for the muslim the problem derives that the Qur'an considers the Injeel as not corrupt in Muhammad's time and also that the apostles were victorious, and indeed John lived on this the end fo the first century.

Javier said...

Which people? the ones that interpolated new passages into scripture only for those not to corrolate with manuscript evidence today and subsequently be taken out? The ones that added the Shepard of Hermes to the Early Codices? Wow, that really is preservation and integrity.

I love blind assertions. I wonder if Yahya understands the Christian view of inspiration? Care to cite any Biblical theologians on what exactly is the Chrisitan view of divine inspiration?

David Wood said...

Here are two more questions for Yahya.

You keep saying that Sami won in our debate on Muhammad. So you obviously think that he showed that Muhammad was a prophet (for to do otherwise would count as failure).

Sami offered three arguments:

(1) The Argument from Miracles. Sami argued that Muhammad performed miracles. The earliest reports we have of miracles start at 125 A.H., and they appear in a text that Muslims reject whenever I appeal to it. So the earliest texts that Muslims can consistently appeal to are 200+ A.H., written in an age where Muslims were writing false stories by the thousands. But let's go with 125 (I'll ignore the utter inconsistency).

(2) The Argument from Fulfilled Prophecy. Laying the weakness, ambiguity, and late dates of the prophecies aside, I pointed out that Muhammad himself declared that fulfilled prophecies do not count as evidence for a prophet's position. Hence, in order to make this argument for Muhammad, Sami must begin by assuming that Muhammad was wrong about what counts as evidence.

(3) The Argument from Prophetic Continuity. Sami argued that Muhammad must be a prophet since his message is the same as what we find in the Bible. Yet I showed that Muhammad's message is quite different from what we find in the Bible. Thus, Muslims must employ circular reasoning here: (a) Whatever is out of line with Islam has been corrupted; (b) what remains is consistent with Islam; therefore (c) Muhammad must be a prophet, since his message lines up with everything that hasn't been corrupted.

So which of these arguments do you think showed that Muhammad was a true prophet? Was it (1) miracle reports from more than a century after the events (which also contradict the Qur'an), (2) fulfilled prophecies that Muhammad said do not count as evidence, or (3) a circular argument based on conformity with a book that contradicts Islam? Which one proved Sami's case? Or was it all three together?

Next, Sami admitted that Muhammad was the victim of black magic, that he had more wives than his own revelations allowed, etc. These are all problems in the eyes of Christians, and Sami admitted them as facts. Do you think that Christians should be so persuaded by (1), (2), and (3) that we should ignore all the problems and accept Muhammad? (It seems that you would have to say this if you think Sami won.)

Sami Zaatari said...

still no Christian has apologized and condemned their un-holy Bible for saying that the rape victim must marry the rapist. i guess we will have to keep waiting then.

Yahya, brother i wouldnt be too bothered by Wood's few supporters here, they are the only 5-10 people who thought he did good in the debate, so let them be, we can just get a comic relief from it.

David Wood said...

Sami once again dodges a completely basic question, demonstrating for the ninth straight time that he is absolutely ashamed of his view. Then he asks Christians a question about our view, as if we're obligated to respond to a person who won't answer a basic question about his view, despire the fact that he's been asked repeatedly. Welcome to Sami Town (Population: 1).

KeithTruth said...

Clear cut proof Islam is the work of satan. Poor girl.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

David,

I'll write a commentary on your debate with Sami (On Prophethood)and shall God Willing discuss all the questions you have had.

Javier said...

I love blind assertions. I wonder if Yahya understands the Christian view of inspiration? Care to cite any Biblical theologians on what exactly is the Chrisitan view of divine inspiration?

VJ said...

now sami again want us to condemn the bible.in that case why doesn't he set an example to the world by condemning his own UNHOLY BOOK,THE Quran,,,I AM REALLY WAITING TO SEE YOU DEBATE DR JAMES WHITE,WHERE ITS OBVIOUS THAT YOU WOULD LOSE TO THE BEST.
SAMI IS INCONSISTANT TO MATCH WITH DR WHITE,HES THE SAME AS OSAMA ABDALLAH,THE WORST DEBATER EVER SEEN.
LOL OSAMA MUST HAVE GOT A TASTE FROM BROTHER DAVID WOOD,WILL BE WAITING FOR HIM ALSO TO CLAIM A VICTORY OVER WOOD ON HIS SITE.
SAMI AND THE REST OF THE MUSLIMS WUD LIKE TO CALL JEWS,CHRISTIANS AS DISBELIEVERS.BUT I MUST TELL YOU ONE THING SAMI IS THE BIGGEST DISBELIEVER CAUSE HE DOSENT BELIEVE IN ALLAH WORD WHICH SAYS THE BIBLE IS TRUE.........LOL
I PRAY FOR PROF DAVID WITH HIS DEBATE AGAINST Yahya Hayder Seymour.
I HOPE DAVID MAKES THE VIDEOS AVAILABLE FOR US ASAP...

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Javier,

I saw your question the first time and chose not to answer it then, posting it once more does not increase the likeliness of me engaging you. Stick to observing on Shi'achat Javier.

Once you agree to debate, then I might engage in your questions.

Fernando said...

Who's Yahya?... is he joking? who is he? he looks like a "crying dool"... Completely without eyes and brain but keeping on crying out loud... despite all the evidenses he continues on saying "I'm right"... poor soul... let's pray for him, so he can overcome his condition, caus I don't feel like there's a medical treatment to such problem...

Dk said...

Muslims stone 13 year old girl for forced pre-marital sex, Allahu Akbar! Another great contribution to humanity from the third world savages.

Question to David: If the authorities would not accept the testimony of the girl being a rape victim, how could they then trust that she actually had sex? How could this be reckoned an actual confession, couldn't she be wrong on both accounts?

Also did they have four witnesses to show she had consentual sex? (Thus i'm asking if they are consistant)

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Who's Yahya?... is he joking? who is he? he looks like a "crying dool"... Completely without eyes and brain but keeping on crying out loud... despite all the evidenses he continues on saying "I'm right"... poor soul... let's pray for him, so he can overcome his condition, caus I don't feel like there's a medical treatment to such problem...

Wow, would Yahweh be proud of your ad hominem insults, first of all what "evidenses" (Evidences) are your referring to? I've not been demonstratedly shown any evidence in this entire discussion posting, secondly why use ad hominem insults?

"Completely without eyes?" "looks like a crying doll?" Perhaps you might have wanted to consult with me why I look like I have no eyes...i.e I'm half filipino. If you were referring to it in a metaphorical manner, then perhaps you should demonstrate that you yourself have a brain and intellect and subsequently can use them without resorting to high school esque insults.

I find it ironic that Wood never rebukes his "Christian Brethen" for their usage of ad hominem insults, yet does a whole post on it whenever a muslim comes out with some.

Dk said...

Yahya

Few pointers.

Firstly, maybe David hasn't read Fernandos post yet (therefore maybe you are speaking to soon?)

Secondly Fernando isn't saying "This is the argument Yahya made but it can't be true since Yahya is without a brain". Thus he is directly insulting you, this is not an ad-hominem, learn the difference.

I also find it ironic that when one Christian DID respond to your points without insult you either ignored his post or haven't yet responded but instead did respond to some dribble made by a person who is not even addresing your points.

Here is a full quotation of the repsonse given to you:

"Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I would rather say: so what if The Shepherd of Hermas and Didache are found in early codixes? We know that Christians considered these books as authoritative (read the church fathers) and they even read them next to Scripture, but not as a part of Scripture.

Exactly, early Christian valued certain books with authority yet not as canonical, and they had no problem keeping these together in a codex.

I guess Muslims misunderstand something of siginficance here: The Bible is no a book, it is books! So who cares if a codex includes a book that the early Christians considered authoritative?

To Muslims this seems problematic, especially since they attempt to apply their own hermeneutic and mindset into the perception about Jewish and Christian Scripture, whereas to Christians we don't see the problem.

Much like the Old Testament apocrypha being found in the Vulgate, what are the Muslims crying about? We know that the Jews loved the apocrypha but did not consider it Scripture. The early Christians did not consider the apocrypha as Scripture either, and it entered the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible) fairly late. Why should that effect anything?

If a Muslims is to prove Bible corruption he needs to provide historical evidence, through explicit confirmation and accessable data that the earliest Christians in the First century, possibly the apostles themselves, sat down and corrupted the entire material willingly,

the problem then remains of course why we have four gospels;

secondly for the muslim the problem derives that the Qur'an considers the Injeel as not corrupt in Muhammad's time and also that the apostles were victorious, and indeed John lived on this the end fo the first century."

Fernando said...

Yahya...

I'm also a filipinian... and like you also have been a convert to islam... then we realized the wrong we did... Being, yourself, half-filipinian (as you say...) you should know that the expression "without eyes or brain" - "walang mga mata o sa utak" - doesn't mean what it literelly says... it's sinonimous of "dubious ou furtive"... like shadows are... (or like your "dawaah" sistem...)... two options: either you don't know filipinian (might be true... I must admit...), our you simply wanted to say something like: "look... I'm beeing stoned by words... by a follower of YHWH"...

The "evidence" (thaks for rectifiyiing me), is that you are refusing to give some answers... silence is also an "evidence"... "without eyes or brain" - this is, furtive - but an envidence nontheless...

I wasn't attacking you, in anyway or form (my religion forbides it), porr Yahya... I was making a statement: you are furtive, you don't care with the true... you just tries to put sand in other peoples eyes... why don't show some respect to your "knowledge" showing you understand what christianity teaches, without beeing furtive, about it's true natures... "Hindi ka dyan" I must say...

Fernando said...

dk...

forgive me if I gave the impression I was insulting Yahya... if he knew filipino, as he said, he should know that...

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear... My english is not so good... I was just trying to check out the assertion that Yahya is half-filipino... you know... meny poor women from Filipinas had been forced to marri islam men that bought her from their family... I know myself a few of them... It might be true that he didn't understand my assertion... but I'll stick to the fact that "silence" is an evidence...

Fernando said...

Yahya...

"looks like a crying doll": "ganito ang hitsura ng isang luhaan manika"...

please... you not going to say you don't understand the true meaning of this sentence... That I don't believe... not even when your so furtive...

I was saying - and I'm not saying this to you, but to those who don't undestand filipino - that, like a cake without sugar, you are trying to make an omolet without eggs when you say that you're going to give an unswer it your site... No offense either, as you weel know...

Javier said...

I saw your question the first time and chose not to answer it then, posting it once more does not increase the likeliness of me engaging you. Stick to observing on Shi'achat Javier.

His Exaltedness, Dominus Apostolicus, Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops Yahya Seymour, thank you for graciously condescending to this lowly Christian and answering his question with a non-reponse.

We are not worthy! We are not worthy!

Its quite simple, judging from previous statements you demonstrate that you apostatized from what you had no knowledge of. I find it, frankly, pathetic that you'd claim to be a convert from Christianity when you prove to have absolutely no knowledge of the Christian view of inspiration. Again I ask, can you cite any authoritative theologian regarding the nature of inspiration?

Furthermore, can you also demonstrate that the latter additions were so completley drastic that they removed an Islamic-like theology, or a non-Christian theology? Can you cite any changes that demonstrate a complete wholesale change to central Christian doctrines? Its insufficient to simply cite 'additions' or 'changes' that have no doctrinal or theological significance because Islam has to be shown if not you may eliminate Christianity, but it does nothing to prove Islam. And even if these 'changes' or 'additions' are shown what does it do to the Christian view of inspiration? Does the Christian view of inspiration accomodate these type of changes? If the Christian view of inspiration does, then how can it be an attack or an argument against Christianity? Oh wait, you can't define the Christian view of inspiration, so then what in the world are you talking about? Oh, right, your Christian view of inspiration. So, its not even the proper view of inspiration, but a straw man. Demonstrating, again, your apostacy was cheap. You're a cheap apostate you takes the name so that it can legitimize your Muslim claims of 'conversion' or 'reversion'. I agree with reversion, afterall, Christians claim men are radically and totally depraved, you simply embraced the religion of man, a works ritghteousness and idolatry. Men are born non-Christians, they are born naturally and totally depraved. You're reversion was the natural working of your false conversion.

I pray that His Holiness, the Vicar grant me the grace of a response.

El-Cid said...

This event is representative of a COMPLETE cultural failure. It is not just this one young girl. This is a societal epidemic in the Islamic world (If you don't believe me, ask some of the women you have fallen victim to it's ills.)

Let me give a personal story on this issue. I have a friend who is a young Muslimah. She was in Saudi Arabia (where she was born) this past summer. Her and a friend were walking a few blocks home one night, and after they parted company, her 18 year old Lebanese friend was sexually assaulted by two Saudi men. In both an elevator and a hallway. This brave young women fought them off and prevented her own rape.

Now, thus far this story could happen anywhere and has really nothing to do with Islam, but here is where it reflects Islamic culture:

The young girl could tell NO ONE! There was no recourse she could persue. I was informed if she told her parents they would basically just lock her up in the house "for her protection". The police would do little to nothing without witnesses....and besides if she told, her "honor" and "pride" would be so damaged by anyone knowing what happened. If her friends found out her "reputation" would be ruined and many people would lose respect for her. These men were using a "strategy" in their attack, with one posted at the doorway to make sure no one interrupted. They had done it before (and gotten away with it obviously), and will do it again.

She was exibiting symptoms of post-traumatic stress, but there is no counseling for this young woman. No legal recourse. Her society quite clearly places responsibility for her attack on her (just like what happened in the article David linked to).

Muslims, if you continue to be in denial about this DEEP societal problem your sisters, mothers, and daughters will continue to be sexually victimized by men, and their attackers will walk with impunity before your "justice" system.

El-Cid said...

Wow...just....wow.....

Sami is pretty much in his own little world now, it would seem.

May you continue to find patience, David :-)

sheggemc said...

Debatethehate.com

Xiao-Fury said...

Lord have mercy...

I feel so much anger reading this. Lord help us.

Steven Bolting said...

This is an wicked way to get rid of the evidence of their sin. Muslims do not have the venue of Christ to take away their guilt of their sin, so killing the victim is some what like "out of sight, out of mind". She cannot be a continual reminder of their sin if she is dead and buried.