Sahih al-Bukhari 6922--On the Killing of Apostates

Narrated Ikrima: Some Zanakiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali; and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger: 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis: "The Inimitable Qur'an"

David Wood and Bassam Zawadi on "Iron Sharpens Iron"

Bassam and I were on Chris Arnzen's "Iron Sharpens Iron" today. We gave a general overview of some similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. Free MP3 files can be downloaded here. We'll be going into more detail tomorrow.

**UPDATE** The MP3 for Part Two can be downloaded here.

James White on Jesus' "I AM" Statements

Palestinian Children's Television: Part Two

First there was Mister Rogers. Then there was Sesame Street. Now there's . . . "The Dane-Eating Rabbit Show."

Palestinian Children's Television: Part One

Who needs Barney when . . . ahh . . . oh boy.

Adnan Rashid vs. Jay Smith: Does the Bible Predict the Coming of Muhammad?

This is one of the infamous Hyde Park/Speakers' Corner Debates. What the debates lose in the way of formality they tend to make up for in excitement.

PART ONE:


PART TWO:

Muslim Family Day at Six Flags

To all my Muslim friends:

Muslim Family Day at Six Flags is two days away. If you'd like to attend, you can visit the ICNA website.

The Irony of the Qur’an—Surah 4:157-158

One of the most famous passages in the Qur’an is Surah 4:157-158.

That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (Qur’an, 4:157-158, Yusuf Ali)

There are several obvious errors in this passage. (Muhammad had an amazing knack for making numerous mistakes in one or two sentences.) For instance, non-Christian Jews would never call Jesus “Christ” (i.e. “Messiah”), for they reject Jesus as the Messiah. Similarly, very few non-Christian Jews would call Jesus “the Messenger of Allah.” Moreover, no Jew who believes that Jesus is the Messiah would boast about crucifying him. Of course, the most egregious factual error in this Surah is that it denies Jesus’ death by crucifixion. The Qur’an errs further in its claim that those who believe in Jesus’ death follow nothing but conjecture, when we have tons of historical evidence to follow. There’s also a massive theological problem, namely, that the standard Muslim interpretations of 4:157 present Allah as a deceiver who tricks people into believing false things for no reason at all. None of this is what I want to talk about, however. I simply want to point out the amazing irony I see here.

People who believe that Jesus died by crucifixion are said to be “full of doubts,” to have “no (certain) knowledge,” and to follow “conjecture.” The irony is that Muslims who read these words seem to have absolutely no clue what happened to Jesus. Some confidently proclaim that God disguised Judas and made him look like Jesus, then allowed Judas to be crucified. Other Muslims claim that Jesus was replaced by someone other than Judas. Still other Muslims (Shabir Ally and Shadid Lewis among them) argue that Jesus was crucified (contrary to what the passage claims), but that God kept Jesus alive throughout the tortures of the Romans. There are even some Muslims who say they don’t know what to make of this passage. Hence, Surah 4 criticizes non-Muslims for being “full of doubts” about what happened to Jesus, and yet it leaves Muslims full of doubts about what happened to Jesus!

Muslims will respond by saying that they at least know that Jesus didn’t die, and that they are sure of this. But how can they be sure? Muhammad couldn’t even read, let alone perform a careful historical investigation. All of the first century evidence is unanimous in reporting Jesus’ death by crucifixion. Virtually all Historical Jesus scholars and New Testament scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross. Indeed, many non-Christian scholars consider Jesus’ crucifixion and death to be an indisputable fact!

So Muslims will say they’re “sure” because they read it in the Qur’an. But how does the Muslim, who believes that the Qur’an is the word of God when he reads about Jesus’ survival, have fewer doubts than the Christian, who believes that the Bible is the word of God when he reads about Jesus’ death? If the Muslim is at all concerned about evidence, he should certainly be full of doubts. For the Bible tells us that Jesus died, while the Qur’an tells us that he didn’t, and this is an area where we can test our holy books to see which is confirmed by the evidence. The Qur’an fails this test miserably, while the Bible passes with flying colors. So instead of saying, “I have no doubts that Jesus survived, because the Qur’an says he survived,” Muslims should instead say, “I have doubts about the Qur’an, because it denies Jesus’ death.”

Thus, even though this passage is supposed to give Muslims assurance of their beliefs, it (1) leaves them in doubt about what happened to Jesus, and (2) should cause them to doubt the entire Qur’an, because its claim in Surah 4 is thoroughly refuted by the facts of history. Additionally, Christians and Jews, who are said to be in doubt concerning Jesus’ death, find that our beliefs are fully confirmed by the evidence. History proves that we’re right!

How amazing, then, that so much irony and so many errors can be contained in such a short passage. Can this be the word of God?

James White Comments on the Lewis-Qureshi Debate

In this video, James discusses Shadid Lewis's use of 1 Corinthians 8:6 in his debate with Nabeel Qureshi (click here to watch the debate). Shadid obviously wasn't prepared to defend his interpretation, and this would ordinarily be forgivable. Shadid is a new debater, so he's obviously not going to be prepared for everything. The problem is that Shadid offered so little evidence in this debate, we would expect him to at least be prepared on the few arguments he uses--especially when he's claiming that a verse justifies leaving Christianity.

Shadid Lewis vs. Nabeel Qureshi: The Case for Islam vs. the Case for Christianity--Why We Chose to Leave and Believe

This was an interesting debate. Shadid Lewis is a convert to Islam; Nabeel Qureshi is a convert to Christianity. The purpose of the debate was for them to discuss their reasons for converting. Notice that evidence played virtually no role in Shadid's conversion (he says he left the church for good when his pastor pulled out a saxophone), but that evidence was crucial to Nabeel's conversion. The reason this is important is that Shadid's case is quite typical. I've talked to several converts to Islam, and when I ask them why they converted, it nearly always has to do with social reasons (e.g. "I was sick of guys eyeing me in my miniskirt, so I put on a veil") rather than evidence. Also notice the inconsistency here. Shadid notes several things he didn't like about what Christians do in the world, but would he accept the same reasoning in reverse? "I left Islam when my Imam started preaching violence." Or, "I left Islam when I saw the World Trade Center fall." Or, "I left Islam when Muslims from countries around the world erupted into violence over Danish cartoons." Or, "I left Islam because many men in the Middle East believe it's okay to beat their wives." Obviously, Shadid doesn't think that any of these would be good reasons to leave Islam. Why then apply a standard to Christianity that he would never apply to Islam?



For a fuller discussion of Nabeel's reasons for converting, see "Crossing Over: An Intellectual and Spiritual Journey from Islam to Christianity."

For some video commentary by James White, click here.

Is the Devil's Face on the Dome of the Rock?

A friend sent me these pictures of the Dome of the Rock--Islam's third holiest site. He pointed out the creepy image on the outside of the building, which some claim to be the face of Satan or some other demon. I'm inclined to see this as a random pattern produced by natural rock formation, but I have to wonder why Muslims chose a slab of marble that has an image that does look rather scary (horns, eyes, a nose, a jagged mouth, flames around the head, a neck, etc.). Do any of my Muslim friends have an idea of why the builders didn't use a different piece of rock? (You can see the location of the slab at the bottom of the second picture.)

Nujood Ali: Only a Year Older than Aisha, and Already Divorced

Non-Muslims around the world have been cheering the bold stand taken by Nujood Ali, a ten-year-old girl who just divorced a man more than three times her age. Nujood reports that her husband raped and beat her. This is yet another instance of the conflict between Muhammad's teachings and basic human rights. Why was this man having sex with a ten-year-old girl? Because he's a Muslim, and Muhammad allowed his followers to have sex with young girls. (For more on Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, click here.) Why did the man beat Nujood when she resisted? Because he's a Muslim, and the Qur'an (4:34) allows husbands to beat rebellious wives. (Note: I'm not saying that all Muslim men marry young girls and beat their wives. I'm simply saying that those who are attracted to young girls are free to marry them, and that those who have rebellious wives are free to beat them--according to the teachings of their prophet.)

READ MORE:
"Child Bride Gets Divorced after Rape, Beatings"
"Yemen Child Bride Nujood Ali Gets Divorce"

Willy Wonka and the Prophet Factory: A Tale of Poor Argumentation and Moral Inconsistency

Nearly everyone is familiar with the tale of Willy Wonka, the eccentric candy maker who invites children to his factory for a delicious tour. Yet few have heard of Mr. Wonka’s claim to prophethood. It seems that his plans were nearly foiled by his love of chocolate.

With his generous gifts of confectionary delights, Wonka managed to convince Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregarde, Augustus Gloop, and Mike Teevee that he is God’s last and greatest prophet. But good old Charlie Bucket remained unconvinced. “Mr. Wonka,” he said. “Can you give me some reason to believe that you’re a prophet?”

“Of course,” replied Wonka. "Just taste my Everlasting Gobstoppers. They’re delicious. Surely the recipe could only come from God. If you don’t believe my Gobstoppers are from God, just try to create something as delicious!”

Charlie was puzzled. It didn’t make sense to him that tasty candy could be considered proof of prophethood. He tasted the Gobstoppers again and again, but he couldn't make sense of Wonka's argument.

One day Charlie went to confront Mr. Wonka about this poor argumentation, but the great candy maker was busy hanging a sign over his Wonka Bars. The sign read:

“THUS SAITH THE LORD: NO ONE SHALL EAT MORE THAN ONE CHOCOLATE BAR PER DAY.”

“Mr. Wonka,” said Charlie. “Could I ask you a question about the ‘evidence’ you gave me?”

“Of course, Charlie,” replied Wonka, gobbling up a delicious Wonka Bar. “Pardon me while I have my lunch.”

“Some people are convinced that Slugworth’s candy is tastier than yours. And I know that a few of the Oompa Loompas have apostatized because they don’t even like your candy. Do you really think that candy is the best way to determine divine truth?”

“Well, Charlie,” said Wonka, wolfing down another Wonka Bar, “if you ask the people who are still in my factory, they’ll all tell you that my candy is the best. So yes, I think that candy is an excellent way to spot a messenger of God. By the way, could you pass me a few more Wonka Bars? I want to eat at least a dozen.”

“But Mr. Wonka!” cried Charlie. “Didn’t you just put up a sign from God saying that no one is allowed to eat more than one chocolate bar per day?”

Wonka shot a suspicious look at Charlie before saying, “You’re in danger of being turned into an eternal blueberry, Charlie. Don’t question me! God will punish you. Besides, I was just about to put up my latest sign.” Here Wonka placed another sign under his original sign. The new sign read:

“BUT THIS RULE DOESN’T APPLY TO WONKA. HE GETS AS MANY CHOCOLATE BARS AS HE WANTS.”

Charlie walked away in horror. He hunted down Veruca and said, “Veruca, don’t you find it odd that Mr. Wonka tells us that we can only have one chocolate bar, while he himself gets as many as he wants?”

“Blasphemy!” cried Veruca. “How dare you challenge Mr. Wonka! You’re a rotten, mean child. I should shove you into the chocolate pond!”

Then Charlie went to Violet. “Violet, don’t you think it’s odd that Mr. Wonka gets special chocolate privileges, when he’s the one putting up the signs from God?”

“I’ll chew you up and spit you out if you keep talking like that, Charlie!” she screamed. “You know that Mr. Wonka needs to get contracts with cocoa and sugar companies! They’re not going to trust him if they don’t see him eating chocolate constantly. So he needs to eat all that chocolate! That's why God gave him special permission.”

Unconvinced, Charlie went and found Augustus. “Listen, Augustus. I know that you believe Mr. Wonka is a prophet. But all he’s given us to show for it is his candy, and if you weren’t so obsessed with candy, I don’t think you’d find his argument compelling at all. And here we see him telling us to do one thing, while he does something completely different. Doesn’t this bother you at all?”

“Nope!” rejoined Augustus, and he buried his face in a bowl of syrup.

“Mike Teevee is smart,” thought Charlie. “He’ll listen if I talk to him.” Charlie found Mike and said, “Please tell me that I’m not the only one who sees that there’s something dreadfully wrong here, Mike. Thousands of people have claimed to be prophets. Mr. Wonka has the worst argument of all in his defense, and he doesn’t practice what he preaches.”

Mike responded, “Talk to me as I try to figure out this Wonkavision Machine, Charlie. Here, just stand there while I throw this switch.”

Mike threw the switch, and Charlie vanished! Then Mike saw Charlie’s molecules dancing near the ceiling. “Sorry, Charlie. In order to put you back together, I’d have to turn on the television. But you see, Mr. Wonka told me to destroy people who criticize him, so that’s what I’m doing. I have to, he’s our prophet. He said so himself. Now . . . where can I find those apostate Oompa Loompas?”

IT’S SAFE TO SAY THAT NO ONE READING THIS STORY WILL BE IMPRESSED BY MR. WONKA’S CLAIM TO PROPHETHOOD, OR BY THE PERPLEXING DEFENSE OFFERED BY HIS UNCRITICAL FOLLOWERS. YET HOW IS MUHAMMAD’S STORY ANY DIFFERENT? IF WE SWITCH WONKA BARS WITH WOMEN, WONKA’S SIGNS WITH SURAH 4:3 AND 33:50, AND THE ARGUMENT FROM GOOD CANDY WITH THE ARGUMENT FROM GOOD POETRY, WE HAVE A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPHETIC CLAIM OF THE FOUNDER OF ISLAM. SADLY, MUHAMMAD’S FOLLOWERS, LIKE WONKA’S, ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO QUESTION HIM.

David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari: "Was Muhammad a Prophet of God?"

Here's one of the debates I did back in March (part of the "Easter Debates"). I'm still waiting for an edited version (one that combines the footage from both cameras), but the raw footage will do for now. On an interesting note, I learned that I'm less aggressive when I debate in Virginia, where Muslim friends and their family members are sitting in the audience. I feel like I'm trying to break things to them gently (which isn't how I feel when I debate elsewhere). Anyhow, this was a fun debate. Sami Zaatari was a pleasure to work with, and I look forward to the two debates we're doing in September. I will certainly need to do a post on his "But Christianity suffers from all the same problems you're bringing up" tactic, since (a) I didn't really get to address this in the debate, and (b) I don't see how Christianity suffers from ANY of the problems I raised. One interesting aspect of this debate is that Sami didn't take the standard approach when dealing with certain criticisms such as the Satanic Verses or Muhammad's assassinations. Instead of denying that these events occurred, he simply argued that they're not really a problem for Islam. I was very impressed that he didn't throw out all of history (which seems to be the standard approach of Muslim debaters). Here's the debate for now. Sam Shamoun's commentary on the debate can be found here and here.

Jamal Badawi vs. Reza Safa: "Can Muslims and Christians Be Friends?"

This debate took place on January 25, 2008, after the Islamic Society of Tulsa challenged Pastor Reza Safa to defend his claims about Islam. The Islamic Society chose Dr. Jamal Badawi, one of Islam's top defenders, to represent them.

PART ONE:


PART TWO:


PART THREE:


PART FOUR:


PART FIVE:


PART SIX:


PART SEVEN:


PART EIGHT:


PART NINE:


PART TEN:


PART ELEVEN:


PART TWELVE:


PART THIRTEEN:

Guess Where Students Are Being Punished for Refusing to Pray to Allah

Pop Quiz. Two students in ____ were recently given detention for refusing to bow to Allah.

(A) Saudi Arabia
(B) Iran
(C) Sudan
(D) Egypt
(E) Great Britain

If you answered (E), congratulations! You understand what's happening in the West. Read More.

Britain's Top Judge: "Sharia Law Welcome in the UK!"

Chief Justice Lord Phillips, England's top judge, has declared that Muslims can use Sharia Law to settle disputes with other Muslims. Read more.

Iranian Convert "Temporarily" Released from Prison

Iranian Christian Mohsen Namvar, tortured and incarcerated for baptizing former Muslims who gave their lives to Jesus Christ, has been temporarily released (with severe injuries due to the tortures inflicted by his Muslim captors). Read more about Brother Mohsen here.

Shabir Ally vs. Jay Smith: Violence in the Qur'an and the Bible

Recently, Shabir Ally and Jay Smith debated the topic: "The Qur'an and the Bible: On the Question of Peace." Shabir is (in my opinion at least) Islam's top debater. (For all of you Zakir Naik fans, I simply must point out that Naik refuses to face Christianity's top apologists. Shabir faces them regularly.) Shabir rarely debates Muslim topics, so it was good to see him defending Islam this time. I disagree with his arguments, methodology, and conclusions, but he did a great job presenting them. (Compare Shabir's defense of Islam on the issue of violence with Nadir Ahmed's career-ending performance here.) I think Jay needed a bit more time to rebut Shabir's claims, but Jay did a great job as well. I'd like to see them do two separate debates on this issue: "Is Islam a Religion of Peace" and "Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?" This would allow a fuller discussion. However, this debate serves as a good introduction to the issue.

PART ONE:


PART TWO:


PART THREE: