Saturday, January 31, 2009

Muslim Population in the UK Rising Ten Times Faster than the Rest of Society

If anyone was worried about the recent violent protests by Muslims in the UK, imagine what things will be like ten or twenty years from now. According to recent statistics, the Muslim population in the UK is growing ten times faster than the rest of society.

The Muslim population in Britain has grown by more than 500,000 to 2.4 million in just four years, according to official research collated for The Times.

The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million. READ MORE.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Sharia in Practice: Letting Muslim Girls Burn for Lack of Modesty

In Saudi Arabia, Sharia is enforced through a variety of means. The Commission for the Protection of Virtue and the Suppression of Vice (CPVSV) is the organization specifically dedicated to upholding the finer points of Islamic law in everyday life. The enforcers of this organization are known as mutaween, but another apt title would be The Sharia Gestapo.

Here's a snippet of what Time had to say concerning some of their more controversial actions:

TIME MAGAZINE:
"The most scandalous case in recent years involved the deaths of 15 Saudi girls at a school in Mecca, Islam's holiest city, in 2002. Eyewitnesses said that when a fire broke out, mutaween refused to allow the girls to flee, or rescuers to go inside, on the grounds that the students were not wearing the required garments to preserve their modesty. The government, however, absolved the commission of blame." READ MORE

I wonder what will happen if Islamic Law takes over the world?

Saudi Arabia: Authorities Arrest Convert to Christianity

LOS ANGELES, January 28 (Compass Direct News) – Five months after the daughter of a member of Saudi Arabia’s religious police was killed for writing online about her faith in Christ, Saudi authorities have reportedly arrested a 28-year-old Christian man for describing his conversion and criticizing the kingdom’s judiciary on his Web site. READ MORE.

Palestinian Children's Television: The Martyred Bunny

Here's what children are watching in Palestine right now. I just want to say that there is absolutely nothing to worry about here. Nothing whatsoever.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Why Did Muhammad Torture and Mutilate the Apostates of Uraynah?

In the comments section of a previous post, Bassam defended the historicity of the healing of a group from Uraynah. Since we're discussing this event, I thought it would be a good time to address Muhammad's reason for torturing and mutilating these men. Muslims typically claim that the men were mutilated because they had mutilated one of Muhammad's herdsmen. But is this the true reason? The Hadith, as usual, paint an inconsistent picture.

Let's begin with the basic story:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4029--Anas bin Malik narrated that a group of eighty people from Ukl came to the Prophet, but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them and they fell sick. They complained about that to the Messenger of Allah and he said: "Why don't you go out with our herdsmen and drink the milk and urine of the camels?" They said: "Yes (we will do that)." They went out and drank some of the (camels') milk and urine, and they recovered. Then they killed the herdsmen of the Messenger of Allah, so he sent (men after them) and they caught them and brought them back. He had their hands and feet cut off and branded their eyes, and left them in the sun to die.

While this Hadith doesn't clearly state the reason for the punishment, the following Hadith does:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4040--It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said: "Some Bedouin from Uraynah came to the Prophet of Allah and accepted Islam, but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them; their skin turned yellow and their bellies became swollen. The Prophet of Allah sent them to some milk camels of his and told them to drink their milk and urine until they recovered. Then they killed their herdsmen and drove off the camels. The Prophet of Allah sent (men) after them and they were brought back, then he had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes were branded." The Commander of the Believers, Abdul-Malik, said to Anas, when he was narrating this Hadith: "Was that (punishment) for Kufr or for sin?" He said: "For Kufr."

So we can see that the punishment was not for attacking the herdsman, but for leaving Islam! But wait, there's more:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4042--It was narrated that Aishah said: "Some people raided the milk camels of the Messenger of Allah. He caught them and had their hands and feet cut off and their eyes gouged out."

Here it seems that the men were tortured and mutilated simply because they dared raid Muhammad's camels. But we have yet another reason:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4048--It was narrated that Anas said: "The Prophet only had the eyes of those people gouged out, because they had gouged out the eyes of the herdsmen."

Bassam, of course will go with this reason, since it seems the least unjust to him. The problem, of course, is that even Allah believed that Muhammad's punishment was unjust:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4047--It was narrated from Abu Az-Zinad that the Messenger of Allah had the (hands and feet) of those who drove off his camels cut off, and their eyes gouged out with fire. Allah rebuked him for that, and Allah, Most High, revealed the entire verse: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger."

Why bother defending a man so brutal that even Allah (certainly no stranger to brutal punishments) must rebuke him? (Notice that the only reason given for the punishment in this Hadith is that the men drove off Muhammad's camels.)

*****NOTE: BE CAREFUL IF YOU WANT TO AGREE WITH ALLAH AND SAY THAT MUHAMMAD WAS WRONG FOR TORTURING, MUTILATING, AND EXECUTING THESE MEN. IF YOU DO, YOU'RE SURE TO GET THE STANDARD MUSLIM RESPONSE: "BUT THE BIBLE . . ." (AS IF THIS ANSWERS THE OBJECTION AND REMOVES THE BRUTALITY!)*****

Monday, January 26, 2009

Muslims in Malmo

Watch the progression of events in this video about demonstrations in Malmo, Sweden.

(1) Jews have a peaceful demonstration (backed by a permit) singing songs and hurting no one.
(2) Muslims (with no permit) gather in much larger numbers and start hurling rocks, eggs, bottles, and eventually a rocket.
(3) The police, knowing they have much less to fear from a group of Jews than a group of Muslims, tell the Jews to leave.



And here's some more about Muslims in Malmo:



I know, I know. "David, how dare you mention any of this? David, a Jew once threw a rock at me, so it's okay for these Muslims to throw rocks back. David, how dare you inform people of what's happening in Europe? David, you don't live in Sweden, so you have no right to post a video about Sweden." And so on.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Responses to the Prosecution (Persecution?) of Geert Wilders

Pat Condell Defends Wilders


Robert Spencer Defends Wilders

Pam Meister Defends Wilders

And, speaking against Mr. Wilders, we have these insightful comments from Sami Zaatari:

"hate or love it, Islam is here to stay, you can be as sick of it and the Muslims as much as you want, were here to stay folks, and just on a side note, the recent new mayor of rotterdam, the second most populated city in Holland is a Muslim, hurraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. :) :) :) :), thats just the icing on the cake."

Muhammad's Reason for Not Forbidding Ghilah

The following Hadith gives us a glimpse of Muhammad's method of forbidding and accepting various practices:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 3328--It was narrated from Aishah that Judamah bint Wahb told her that the Messenger of Allah said: "I was thinking of forbidding Ghilah until I remembered that it is done by the Persians and Romans"--(one of the narrators) Ishaq said: "(They) do that--and it does not harm their children."

Ghilah refers to having sex with a woman who is breastfeeding. Muhammad says that he was thinking of forbidding the practice. But then he remembered that the Persians and Romans do it, so he didn't forbid the practice. Apparently, if he hadn't remembered that the Persians and Romans practice Ghilah, he would have condemned it, and Muslims today would say that Allah forbids Ghilah.

Isn't it obvious that this had nothing to do with any divine insight on Muhammad's part, and that what he rejected and accepted was simply a matter of his all-too-human thought processes? If so, why are Muslims so obsessed with following Muhammad's regulations (especially when they include pagan practices, such as bowing to the Ka'ba, etc.)? Here Muslims will say, "We follow Muhammad's regulations because he commanded us to follow his regulations." But that's exactly my point. As this Hadith shows, Muhammad's reasoning had nothing to do with revelation. Why, then, accept his command to follow his regulations?

Sunan Abu Dawud and Jami At-Tirmidhi on Sex with Captives

SUNAN ABU DAWUD

Sunan Abu Dawud 2150—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri said: The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2166—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that a man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2167—Muhairiz said: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse). Abu Sa’id said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: Can we draw the penis when the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) is among us before asking him about it? So we asked him about it. He said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2168—Jabir said: A man from the Ansar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl, and I have intercourse with her, but I dislike her to conceive. He replied: Withdraw you penis from her if you wish, for what is decreed for her will come to her. After a time the man came to him and said: The girl has become pregnant. He said: I told you that what was decreed for her would come to her.

JAMI AT-TIRMIDHI

Jami At-Tirmidhi 1132—Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri narrated: We got some captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: And women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess [4:24].”

Jami At-Tirmidhi 1137—Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: “We practiced Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” . . . Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.”

Jami At-Tirmidhi 3016—Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. So some of the men disliked that, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . . . [4:24]’”

Jami At-Tirmidhi 3712—Imran bin Husain narrated that the Messenger of Allah dispatched an army and he put Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He left on the expedition and he entered upon a female slave. So four of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah scolded him, and they made a pact saying: “[If] we meet the Messenger of Allah we will inform him of what Ali did.” When the Muslims returned from the journey, they would begin with the Messenger of Allah and give him Salam, then they would go to their homes. So when the expedition arrived, they gave Salam to the Prophet, and one of the four stood saying: “O Messenger of Allah! Do you see that Ali bin Abi Talib did such and such.” The Messenger of Allah turned away from him. Then the second one stood and said as he said, and he turned away from him. Then the third stood before him, and said as he said, and he turned away from him. Then the fourth stood and said as they had said. The Messenger of Allah faced him, and the anger was visible on his face, he said: “What do you want from Ali?! What do you want from Ali?! What do you want from Ali?! Indeed Ali is from me, and I am from him, and he is the ally of every believer after me.”

Saturday, January 24, 2009

A Former Muslim's Thoughts on Sex with Captives

Here's a letter from a woman who left Islam based on moral considerations.

When I was in my 6th grade, I was unhappy at certain things that I got to know about the way women are treated in Islam. This included the property rights and divorce procedures. But never in my entire life had I known that Muslims actually used to rape prisoners of wars and this was sanctioned by the Prophet. All, in my entire life, I read in my Islamic books that Muslims treated prisoners with kindness and this and that. I don’t find any sort of kindness in raping women who were captured. READ MORE.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim on Sex with Captives

SAHIH AL-BUKHARI

Sahih al-Bukhari 2229—Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah’s Messenger (an Ansari man came) and said, “O Allah’s Messenger! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4138—Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, “We went out with Allah’s Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah’s Messenger while he is present among us?’ We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.’”

Sahih al-Bukhari 4350—Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, “Don’t you see this (i.e., Ali)? When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, “O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Don’t hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumus.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 5210—Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Messenger about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no person that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6603—Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Messenger! We get slave-girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Messenger said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no living creature which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 7409—Narrated Abu Sa’id al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.’”

SAHIH MUSLIM

Sahih Muslim 3371—Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning about al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih Muslim 3373—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl with them. We then asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of Judgment must be born.

Sahih Muslim 3383—Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

Sahih Muslim 3432—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).

Sahih Muslim 3433—Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sent a small army. The rest of the hadith is the same except this that he said: Except what your right hands possess out of them are lawful for you; and he did not mention “when their ‘idda period comes to an end”. This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Sa’id (al-Khudri) (Allah be pleased with him) through another chain of transmitters and the words are: They took captives (women) on the day of Autas who had their husbands. They were afraid (to have sexual intercourse with them) when this verse was revealed: “And women already married except those whom you right hands posses” (iv. 24).

Six Pastors Killed, Forty Churches Burned in Nigeria

Of course, this has nothing to do with Islam, even though Muslims were killing and burning in the name of Islam. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Muhammad commanded his followers to "fight those who do not believe" (Qur'an 9:29). We should just take this as an isolated event (despite the fact that things like this are happening across the Muslim world). Shame on me for even mentioning the murder of my Nigerian brothers and sisters.

Yep, nothing to worry about here. READ MORE.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Sahih Muslim 3240: Muhammad Sees a Woman

Here's an interesting Hadith:

Sahih Muslim 3240: Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and returns in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

The lesson Muhammad draws is that, when a man sees a woman and desires her, he should go have sex with his wife to satisfy his urges. But think about the irony here. Muhammad sees a woman and desires her, so he goes to Zainab, a woman who divorced her husband (Muhammad's adopted son) because she learned that Muhammad had desired her!

Notice also that, according to Jesus, Muhammad repeatedly sinned by committing adultery in his heart:

Matthew 5:27-8: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Apparently, Muhammad's numerous wives weren't enough to keep his desires in check.

Virgins in Paradise

Allah will give you lots of sex in exchange for lots of violence.

Certainly nothing to worry about here.

Holland: Criticizing Islam Is Unacceptable

Nakdimon translated the following article. It explains why Geert Wilders, who produced the short film Fitna, is going to be prosecuted for "hate and discriminatory statements" because he criticized the Qur'an. As recent events have shown, in the West, it's perfectly acceptable for Muslims to call for genocide against Jews. Criticizing the Qur'an, however, is now criminal.

Novum, Wednesday 01.21.2009 –

Geert Wilders should be prosecuted for hate and discriminatory statements. This is what the Amsterdam court decided Wednesday. The DA decided earlier not to prosecute the PVV leader. The DA now has to do so.

According to the court, there are sufficient indications that Wilders is guilty of criminal offenses. The court has come to that verdict because of, among other things, the rhetoric of the public statements of Wilders and the way he presented his views. He did it in a way which the court finds one sided, strongly generalizing, radical, fierce and frequently repeated. Therefore it could be seen as bigotry.

In addition, the statements of Wilders are also offensive to Muslims, because they are affected in their religious dignity. Wilders did this by attacking one of the symbols of the Muslim faith, the Koran.

Wilders compared the Koran to the book "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler. The court believes that certain offensive remarks are not under the criminal law, but should be resisted in the social and political debate. This is not the case for the comparison with 'Mein Kampf', says the court, because it is so offensive to Muslims that it is of importance to prosecute Wilders.

The court does not believe that the freedom of speech is at stake with the decision to prosecute Wilders. The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right emphatically, but according to the court, in the European context, these statements are unacceptable. Prosecution also doesn't affect Wilders in his freedom of speech, provided that the possible sentence is proportionate.

Finally, the court considers that prosecution of Wilders serves the Netherlands. The hate speech in the democratic rule of law "is so serious that there is a public interest to draw a clear line in the public debate".

In July, a special discrimination section of the DA decided not to prosecute the PVV-leader for a number of statements in the media and in his film 'Fitna', against which several charges were pressed. Some chargers, including the anti-racism organization "Nederland Bekent Kleur", were not pleased with that decision of the DA and objected [to the verdict of] the court to nonetheless prosecute him.

Justice has received dozens of charges against Wilders in the last years. Those were for statements in de Volkskrant, De Pers and in an Internet column. Different people and organizations thought that the PM conducted an incitement to hatred and discriminated. The charges were gathered in Amsterdam and viewed by the discrimination section of the OM. They advised not to prosecute.

When the trial starts against Wilders is not yet known.

I have to confess that I'm quite pleased that Wilders is being prosecuted. I think the trial will draw much attention to what's going on in Europe. READ MORE.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Muslims Supporting Genocide throughout the West

First London, then Germany, now the U.S.?

But, of course, there's nothing to be worried about.  And, of course, we should not be posting these things.  Islam is a peaceful religion and there's nothing to worry about here.  This is just a peaceful demonstration from a few Muslims.  (Yes, Muslim friends, we'll just ignore the violent mob in London, a call for the return of Hitler in New York, a cry to "Put Jews back in the ovens" in Washington, nazi symbols in Oklahoma City, taunts to wipe out Jews in Cleveland, swastikas in Chicago, assaults on a man carrying a jewish flag in San Francisco, shouts to "Burn Israel" in Montreal, the demand to "Nuke Israel" in Fort Lauderdale, and exclamations of "Long Live Hitler - put Jews in ovens" in Los Angeles).

Nope, nothing to worry about at all.




The Qur'an on Sex with Captives

My friend Bassam says that he would like to have a discussion on Islam, Christianity, and rape. I gladly accept his challenge. However, before we begin I will need a few days to post materials from the relevant Islamic sources on this issue. I'll start with the Qur'an, and in subsequent posts will go through all of Sahih Sittah, the Sirah literature, and some commentaries. Once everything has been posted, Bassam and I can have our discussion.

Qur’an 4:24—Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess . . .

Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex; except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee . . .

Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

The Muslim Response to Muslim Atrocities

I first noticed it with my parents.  Though they are amongst the most caring and loving people that I have ever known, when it comes to atrocities supported by Islam, they abandon even their own loving nature in order to defend their religion.

It so happened that one afternoon my parents were trying to convince me of the beauty of Islam and therefore its divine origin.  In frustration I responded "Muhammad allowed his warriors to rape their female captives.  This is in Sahih Bukhari and in Sahih Muslim, and it explains verses in the Quran!"

In sharp response, my mother said "So what!? In the West you rape women with your eyes! You go to the beach, you see women walking around barely clothed, and you're raping them with your eyes!"

Her response left me reeling. Not only was I bewildered by the utter inaccuracy of what she implied, as if looking at women is as violating as forcibly inserting one's phallus into their bodies, but I was surprised that she did not even begin to denounce the practice of raping female captives!

After this incident, my eyes were more attuned to Muslim responses to Muslim atrocities.  The more I observed, the more I realized that my mother was far from alone in her defense. Other Muslims similarly try to detract attention from Muslims' horrible morality by pointing the finger elsewhere, saying "Look at that over there! It, too, is bad!"

The post immediately before this present post is a perfect example. Though rape is unfortunately prevalent throughout the world, it often comes with a religious twist when performed by Muslims. In this case, Christian girls were raped and forced to convert to Islam. When the women were finally rescued, a Muslim mob congregated to protest. Protest against the rapists? No! They came to protest their return to their father, who was a Christian, since they were now Muslims (a result of their forced conversions).

The mob was completely unmoved by the raping of two young girls, entirely ambivalent towards the Muslim rapists.

When David posted a blog about the incident, the Muslims who visit this blog reacted the same way!  Instead of saying "This was bad and I condemn these Muslims!" here are the reactions we get:

Bassam: "What about the filthy Serbian Christians that raped tens of thousands of innocent Muslim women in Bosnia?"

Ibn: "There are verses in the corrupted bible that do permit rape in the logical sense."

Sami: "How many ladies have been raped in the west since the posting of this article?"

To be fair, as an afterthought, one Muslim did post a rebuke of the rapes:

Yahya: "BTW Yes I condemn this horrific act"

It is shocking to see Muslims entirely unmoved by atrocities when committed by other Muslims. When the attention is drawn towards these crimes, they boil in anger, as if to say "How dare you accuse us, the people of God! Look at the rest of the world!"

Oh but the rest of the world is looking at you, dear Muslim friends. Your behavior is akin to that of a school boy caught breaking the rules. When confronted, he responds "Well other boys are doing it, too!" And yet, when the boy finds others breaking the same rules, he drags them to the teachers saying "This filth is breaking the rules and must be punished!"



A similar observation from a cartoonist

Muslims Kidnap and Repeatedly Rape Christian Girls in Pakistan

If it weren't for the fact that the girls were taken to the mosque and forced to convert to Islam, we might conclude that these were men who simply wanted to rape young girls. However, conversion was a key element in the attack on these young Christians. Sadly, things like this are quite common in the Muslim world.

The Washington-DC based human rights group International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that two Christian girls in Pakistan have finally been rescued after two Muslim men kidnapped them two months ago, raped them repeatedly, forcibly converted them to Islam, and sold them to other men as sex slaves. READ MORE.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

"A" is for "Allah"

In America, we learn that "A" is for "Apple," "B" is for "Ball," and so on. Not so in Islam's latest school book. Pakistani children are learning that "A" is for "Allah" and "B" is for "Bandook" (Urdu for "gun"). Care to guess what "J" is for? "Jack-o-lantern"? "Jar"? "Jug"? "Jackal"? "Jalapeno"? Wrong! How would these pansy words ever inspire a generation of mujahideen? "J" is for "Jihad," silly!

"M" is for "Makes me sick." Read more.

P.S. Since certain Muslims haven't been reading posts carefully before commenting, I hope they won't respond to this one without noticing that there's a link to my source. So none of this "Ah, but you've added to your post to make it look like you had already answered what I said" nonsense.

Note: I prophesy that Ibn or Islam2009 will make the very errors I have already addressed.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Islam2009 and the Hydra of Learning

I try to be accurate when I refute Islam. I try to be honest with the evidence. I do my absolute best to correctly interpret the meaning of their texts.

Sadly, I do not see the same care on the Muslim side. Whenever Islam2009 responds to anything, I feel like I need to do four or five posts just to begin to address his errors. This is the pattern:

(1) I say something.

(2) Islam2009 responds to it. In his response, he makes four or five clear errors.

(3) I and others respond to the four or five errors.

(4) Islam2009 then posts an unimaginably long response, with dozens of errors.

(5) I try to respond to one or two at a time.

(6) For every error I respond to, Islam2009 replies with several more errors.

(7) Soon, there are so many errors on a single page, it would take all day and night to even begin to refute them.

For every error we refute, several more spring up. I feel like I'm fighting the Hydra of Lerna, which, according Greek myth, was almost impossible to stop, since, whenever one of its heads was cut off, two more would grow back in its place. Truly, it would take the mighty Hercules to stop Islam2009's many-headed error monster. It seems that the new Muslim methodology is to overpower us with their limitless ignorance.

But we must try, my friends. While it is impossible to respond to all of the errors of the Muslims on this blog (due to the sheer volume of their output), we can nevertheless respond to some, in hopes that Muslims will eventually recognize that their heads are filled with all kinds of false ideas. Perhaps they will then search for the truth. (We can only hope.)

Yesterday, Islam2009 made one of the most absurd claims anyone in history has ever made. He claimed that there were first century disputes over which books should be part of the New Testament. I asked Islam2009 to produce evidence to support his claim, knowing full well that there is no evidence to support his claim. My goal was for him to acknowledge that he invents things out of his own mind. Did he do this? No. Instead, he decided, once again, to completely misrepresent the New Testament, and to avoid even the most basic principles of careful reasoning. He begins:

How do we know there were disputes over different books in the 1st century?

A couple very telling verses come to mind:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.”

(Galatians 1:6-7)

Now that’s sounds like a dispute to me!

Now where is that early 1st century Gospel of the Galatians that Paul so hated, David?

I woud just LOVE to read about what they had to say.

In fact its remarkable that you even ask for proof of major 1st century disputes given that many of Pauls letters- such as that to the Galatians- are written in the very face of them.

Paul isn’t exactly writing to all these churches to say “Hey guys, your all doing great! Keep up the good work!” Is he? Its just one big apologetic effort to try and convince his fellow Christians to accept “MY GOSEPEL” as he says in 2 Tim 2:8.

How is Islam2009's response flawed? Let me count the ways.

(1) He's appealing to Galatians as evidence of first century disputes over which books would be included in the New Testament. With the possible exceptions of James, 1 Thessalonians, and the Markan Passion Narrative, none of the books of the New Testament had been written. Moreover, we have no evidence that anyone in this period was even thinking of putting together a Christian canon. Thus, it's difficult to understand how anything at the time of Galatians could be considered a dispute over canonical books.

(2) The false "gospel" that Paul referred to had nothing to do with a book. This is a misunderstanding Muslims get from Muhammad (who obviously had no clue what the word "gospel" meant). The word "gospel" (euangelion), in Greek, simply means "good news." It referred to the proclamation of a great victory or to the rise of a new emperor. Thus, when a new Caesar would rise to power, a herald would go out proclaiming the "good news." Muslims, however, base their understanding of "gospel" on Muhammad's misunderstanding. According to Muhammad, the "gospel" of Jesus was a book. This, as everyone knows, is false. The Gospels in the New Testament were called "Gospels" because they contained "the Gospel," i.e. the message about Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. Hence, the dispute in Galatians has nothing to do with a dispute over books (let alone a dispute over which books should be considered canonical).

(3) Islam2009 says he wishes that he could read about this other Gospel. Well, he can--in Galatians (where Paul responds to this false gospel) and in the book of Acts (where the early church leaders respond to this false gospel). What was this false gospel? According to Islam2009, it's a complete mystery. But it isn't. In the early church, there was a disagreement over how much of the Old Testament Law the gentile believers had to follow. Some in the Christian community believed that gentile believers had to go through the whole process of becoming Jews, e.g. circumcision, numerous eating regulations, and so on. Paul (and all of Jesus' apostles) rejected this view. So do we have any evidence here of a dispute over canonical books? None whatsoever. All we have is a Muslim misunderstanding based on Muhammad's ignorance of basic facts of history (which, by the way, is exactly what we would expect from a seventh century false prophet).

(4) Would anyone like to see a bit of deception on Islam2009's part? Watch how sly he is! In his comments, he originally said that there were first century disputes about books. I asked him to produce evidence of disputes over which books were authoritative. Now he says, "In fact its remarkable that you even ask for proof of major 1st century disputes given that many of Pauls letters- such as that to the Galatians- are written in the very face of them." Here Islam2009 deceptively shifts the discussion from disputes over books to disputes of any kind. True, Paul's letters were written about disputes. But these disputes had nothing to do with books or canonical issues. Have Muslims no shame? I challenged Islam2009 to give me an apple; he tossed me an orange and said, "There's your apple!"

(5) Islam2009 attacks Paul because Paul referred to his message as "my Gospel." Again, Islam2009 is looking at Christianity through the eyes of Muhammad (who, once again, had no clue what he was talking about). "My Gospel" doesn't mean "my book." Paul never wrote a biography of Jesus. "My Gospel" simply means "the Good News that I preach," "the proclamation I bring," etc. Only a Muslim who is absolutely desperate to attack Paul would ever see anything sinister in Paul's reference.

Not content with these errors, Islam2009 continues:

And what about this:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
(Luke 1:1-3)

Now where are those "many" 1st century "accounts" that Luke spoke of and used, and do they all agree with your Gospel? How do you know?

One of them is almost certainly Mark’s Gospel. What about the others?

Many NT scholars say Q, that Mathew also used, which doesn’t mention the Crucifixion or resurrection.

Regardless of whether you believe in Q David, where are these ‘many’ pre-Lukan accounts and please sure me how you know they all agree with your ‘gospel’?

Let's look at some of the many flaws in Islam2009's response.

(1) As evidence that there were first century disputes over books, Islam2009 points to Luke's comment that many had written about the life of Jesus. But is there anything in this passage about a dispute? Not a word! Luke states that many people had written about Jesus; he gives no indication that these books were wrong, or that they contained some different gospel in which Jesus didn't die, rise from the dead, or claim to be divine. So we still have no evidence of a dispute over books. It's simply a matter of fact that most books of antiquity didn't survive, because papyrus didn't last long. (For example, we have roughly one-fifth of Aristotle's writings.) Books would only survive if people were constantly copying them. Interestingly, this supports the reliability of the New Testament books. The early Christian church would have most frequently copied the books that they believed were most authoritative, or which had the strongest connection to Jesus' apostles. Which books survived through constant copying? The four Gospels!

(2) Since Islam2009 really seems to think it's a problem that Christians once had books that no longer exist, I simply have to point out his inconsistency. Muslims during and before the time of Ibn Ishaq wrote biographies about Muhammad. For instance, Urwa Ibn Az-Zubayr wrote his "Tract of Seerah." Where are these books? Should we conclude, since we do not have them, that Muslims deliberately destroyed them in an effort to cover up their disputes? We would, of course, have some reason to believe this, since we know that Muslims would not hesitate to burn evidence to cover up disputes. Nevertheless, it would never occur to me to say that, since Muslims didn't preserve all of their books, this must be due to disputes over the authenticity of the books. This would be absurd, and yet it's exactly the sort of reasoning Muslims apply to Christianity!

(3) While we're on this issue, notice that Muslims weren't able to preserve a single biography of Muhammad from the first century, while Christians were able to preserve four. And yet Islam2009 attacks us for not having more, despite the fact that his fellow Muslims couldn't preserve a single one! Christians were being persecuted and killed, and yet they managed to preserve a number of writings. Muslims had a huge kingdom, and yet they preserved practically nothing. If our case for Jesus is weak because we only have four first century biographies (along with numerous other first century texts), how much weaker is the case for Muhammad, which can't produce a single first century biographical source! Islam2009's ability to be inconsistent knows no bounds!

(4) This one is hilarious. Islam2009 criticizes us based on the fact that Q didn't contain reports of Jesus' crucifixion or resurrection. But what was Q? If it was a document at all, it was a collection of Jesus' wise sayings! Would a collection of Jesus' wise sayings contain reports of his death and resurrection? Not at all! This would be similar to me saying, "Hey! There are all kinds of things in Sahih al-Bukhari that aren't in the Qur'an!" Well, there would be, wouldn't there, since they're two completely different types of literature? And yet this is somehow a problem for us.

Ah well. We've only begun to touch Islam2009's errors, but we've discussed some of the basic flaws in fact and logic. (Notice how long it takes to respond to a very short passage written by Islam2009.) We'll see how he responds. If I have time and he doesn't heap up several dozen more errors, I'll go through his absurd "refutation" of my last post, where he made even more mistakes than he made here. And so the battle will continue: Me trying to spread the facts using valid logic, and Islam2009 trying to overpower everyone with his endless supply of errors.

Just to review, Islam2009 claimed that there was a first century dispute over the books of the New Testament. I asked him to provide evidence for his obviously false claim. What was his response? (1) Paul records a dispute in Galatians (nothing to do with a dispute over books), and (2) not all first century books about Jesus survived (not a shred of evidence for a dispute). At this point, a man of integrity would apologize for spreading falsehood and wrongly criticizing Christianity. Is this what Islam2009 will do? I suppose that anything is possible. But given the fact that he called Nabeel a liar when Nabeel said something completely true, then admitted that Nabeel was right and yet refused to apologize, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Indeed, based on what I know about Islam2009 right now, I fully expect him to offer us a long series of comments, full of additional errors, misrepresentations, distorted passages, and faulty logic, in yet a further effort to wear us out.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

German Police Bow to Muslim Mob

If you thought the British police showed little backbone when confronted by a Muslim mob, you should see how German police respond. As Muslims cheer, German police force a man to remove an Israeli flag from his window. Given their history, one would think that the Germans would be more careful about taking rights away from Jewish citizens.

****UPDATE**** German police apologize here. (Matthew, could you translate a little of this short piece? I'm sure it would be more accurate than my translation.)

The Bible, the Qur'an, and the Impact of Textual Change

As we've seen in recent posts, the text of the New Testament is on much firmer ground than the text of the Qur'an. While Christians in the third century had temporary disagreements on minor books of the New Testament (e.g. 3 John), we find disagreements among Muhammad's closest followers as to which books should be included in the Qur'an. Moreover, we find that individual verses, sections of Surahs, and entire Surahs are missing from the Qur'an. Beyond this, when Christians are confronted with textual variants, we are able to investigate these variants using the principles of textual criticism, along with our manuscript tradition. Muslims, on the other hand, systematically destroyed their manuscript tradition, which means that textual critics can't investigate the significant variants at all. Further, as Nabeel pointed out, universal corruption of the Qur'an was possible, since all copies of the Qur'an were at one point in the hands of Uthman. That is, at one point in Islamic history, a human being had the power to make changes in all future editions of the Qur'an. Universal corruption was never possible in Christianity, however, since no Christian ever had all manuscripts of the New Testament.

Thus, Muslims who claim that the textual transmission of the New Testament is somehow inferior to that of the Qur'an simply don't know what they're talking about. Nevertheless, there is an even more important point here, which Nabeel alluded to in his last post. Textual variants don't have the same implications in Christianity as they do in Islam. Allow me to explain.

The core of the Christian message is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is primarily a message about Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. Notice, however, that all three of these issues are a matter of historical investigation. Jesus' death by crucifixion was a historical event. His resurrection from the dead was a historical event. His claims to divinity were historical events. The core of Christianity, then, is open to historical investigation. Even more significant is the fact that this core of Christianity is independent of whether the New Testament was perfectly preserved or even inspired. To put the matter differently, Christianity is true if certain historical events occurred. To know that these events occurred, we need reliable records of what happened in the first century. To know that Christianity is true, then, we simply need to know that the New Testament is historically reliable when it reports Jesus' death, resurrection appearances, and claims to deity. While Christians still believe in inspiration, it is important that we recognize that inspiration is not essential to this historical core.

So what's the significance of textual variants in Christianity? These variants are only significant if they cast doubt on Jesus' death, resurrection, and deity. Do any textual variants do this? Not at all. I challenge Muslims to find a manuscript that does not present Jesus as the risen Lord. Our manuscripts are completely consistent on the core of Christianity, and we have numerous early witnesses who testify to the historical core of the Christian message. (Note that our belief does not rest on the word of a single person, as in Islam). We may conclude that textual variants do not affect the truth of Christianity.

Is the situation the same in Islam? Hardly. Muhammad claimed that he received the Qur'an from the angel Gabriel. According to Surah 15:9 (supposedly given to Muhammad by Gabriel), God would perfectly preserve the Qur'an. Do Muslim records of missing verses, missing sections of Surahs, and missing Surahs affect the truth of this claim? Absolutely. Does the fact that Muhammad's most reliable followers couldn't even agree on the correct number of Surahs affect this claim? Absolutely. Does the fact that Aisha's goat ate the Verse of Stoning and the Verse of Suckling affect this claim? Absolutely.

Thus, textual variants falsify Surah 15:9, and this shows that Muhammad did not receive this verse from God. And if Muhammad did not receive this verse from God, why should we believe that he received any of the Qur'an from God? When we add to all of this the fact that Muhammad claimed, on at least one occasion, that he had delivered a revelation from the devil, that his first impression of his revelations was that they were demonic in origin, and that he was admittedly the victim of black magic, do we have a problem here? Undoubtedly.

To show that Christianity is false, Muslims need to show that the core of the Christian Gospel was completely corrupted, and they just can't do this. To show that Islam is false, Christians simply need to show that Allah didn't perfectly preserve the Qur'an, and what could be easier than this? Of course, Muslims will continue, in spite of the evidence, to proclaim that the Qur'an has been perfectly preserved, just as they will continue, in spite of the evidence, to proclaim that Jesus never died on the cross, rose from the dead, or claimed to be divine. But this simply shows that Muslims have very little concern for truth. The facts speak for themselves.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Western Muslims Clash with Western Police (to Protest Israel's Existence)

Muslims in the UK now know that the police can do nothing to stop them. (Note: This video contains several profanities uttered by Muslims.)

Has anyone noticed that when Muslims are upset about something, they will attack virtually any non-Muslims, whether those non-Muslims have done anything to offend Islam? Thus, when British Muslims get upset about Palestine, they attack British police (who have nothing to do with Palestine). When Muslims around the world get upset about cartoons, they attack Christians everywhere (despite the fact that Christians had nothing to do with the cartoons).

Notice that there were a couple of peaceful Muslims in the video, trying to calm their brothers and sisters down. Notice also that the crowd completely ignored these peaceful voices. This may be a preview of things to come. When Islam becomes powerful enough to fight the West, many Muslims will follow Muhammad's command to attack non-Muslims. There will, of course, be some peaceful Muslims who try to prevent Islam from attacking the West. This video shows who's going to win that argument.

On a different note, can anyone imagine what would happen if Muslims could channel this violent energy into something positive (e.g. helping the poor, bringing human rights to Muslim countries, etc.)? Sadly, Muslims only seem to get excited when someone offends them.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

The Quran vs. the Bible: A Comparison of Textual Integrity

We've all seen it, and we've seen it all too often.  The topic of discussion might be Muhammad, Islamic theology, or the Quran.  When evidence that challenges the Muslim position is proffered, a regular response is: "But your Bible is corrupt...".  For examples of Muslims committing the tu quoque fallacy, you can click here, here, here, or here.  (All of these occurred on this blog in the last 10 days).

The Muslims who do this, though logically fallacious, do ultimately have a good point.  The New Testament and the Quran are the holy scriptures of Christianity and Islam, and as such they merit some degree of comparison. This article compares the basics of textual integrity.  I will attempt to be as unbiased in my presentation as possible before concluding.  (+ or - denotes years from either Muhammad's death or Jesus' death).  NOTE: Detailed discussions concerning canonicity and inspiration are out of the scope of this article.

Inception of scripture:
Quran: -23 years (Recorded during Muhammad's life)
NT: +2 years (Creed from 1 Cor 15:3-8)

Number of Divinely Sanctioned Forms:
Quran: 7 ahruf (Sahih Bukhari 3.601)
NT: 1 form

Earliest Records of Corruption:
Quran: +0 (Some verses eaten by a goat; Ibn Majah, Book of Nikah, p.39)
+12 (Umar records the missing verses; Bukhari 8.82.816 & 817) 
NT: Uncertain, but late

State-Controlled Recension (revision) of All Manuscripts:
Quran: +20 (Uthman)
NT: Never

State-Controlled Destruction of All Manuscripts:
Quran: +20 (Uthman)
NT: Never

Importance of Textual Preservation for the Religion's Truth Claims:
Quran: Extreme importance (Muhammad's one sign for his truth)
NT: Peripheral importance (Jesus' main sign was his resurrection)

Discussion:
The New Testament had a period of about 3 centuries when it was not openly proliferating throughout the Roman empire.  This was because of edicts issued by Roman authorities which persecuted Christians and/or called for the destruction of the Bible (e.g. the Diocletian Edict).  During this time, a core of books was well known throughout Christendom while the rest of the books were better known in various regions.  

In addition to this, no one person controlled the manuscripts.  They were in the possession of individuals and churches who revered these scriptures and saw to their safe-keeping.  Later, when Constantine's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity in 313 AD, people began openly assembling to officially discuss and agree upon the finer points of the Christian faith.  Thus the Council of Nicaea in 325, and later the Council of Hippo in 393 (which officially canonized the books of the NT).

Though at first glance this seems to be a mark against New Testament integrity, one thing is certain: there is extremely low possibility for textually undetectable corruption in the New Testament.  Here are the reasons:

  1. If any errors crept into a manuscript being copied in, for example, Asia Minor, a manuscript from Rome would not contain those errors. Comparing the two (along with other manuscripts) would rectify the mistakes.
  2. Since no one person controlled all the manuscripts, it would be impossible to uniformly corrupt all the manuscripts.
  3. Since there was no uniform revision of the all the manuscripts, surviving manuscripts can help us piece together the original text, not a revised version of that text.
  4. There was no universal destruction of all the texts.  Though many attempted this, such as Diocletian, surviving manuscripts and historical accounts are proof that these attempts were unsuccessful.
The Quran, on the other hand, suffers severely on all four above counts:
  1. It was controlled by one person, the khalifa (as evidenced by Uthman's ability to recall all the manuscripts).  
  2. It was uniformly revised by Uthman.  
  3. During this time, if any error crept into the manuscript which would serve as the official text, this error would only be detectable by comparing it to previous manuscripts.  
  4. Unfortunately, all the previous manuscripts were put to the flames.

Thus, we can conclude the following:
  1. It is virtually impossible for the New Testament to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.
  2. It is extremely easy for the Quran to have been uniformly corrupted in a textually undetectable manner.
Of course, this does not necessitate that the Quran was corrupt, it just means that it was extremely prone to textually undetectable corruption.  

But when historical data indicates missing verses as early as the death of Muhammad and the reign of Umar, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely plausible. 
 
When we add to this that Muhammad's chosen teachers of the Quran disagreed with Uthman's final product, the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes extremely likely.  

When topped off by quotations from early Muslims which say that "much of the Quran has been lost", the argument that the Quran has been corrupted becomes incontrovertible.

The coup de grace occurs when we realize that the Quran's textual integrity is central to the truth of Islam.  Muhammad offered the Quran as his most miraculous sign to vindicate his truth.  If the Quran is false about its protection from Allah (15:9), then Islam is false.  This is in contrast to the NT, which does not rely on its textual integrity as a sign for us.

Conclusion:
The history of the New Testament allows its text to be investigated and verified. The Quran cannot allow us to come any closer to the original text than the Uthmanic Revised Standard Version 20 years removed from Muhammad. Any errors which found their way into the URSV would be permanent and uncorrectable. And, unfortunately, historical accounts from early Islam tell us such errors exist.  

When pitting the New Testament against the Quran, at least in terms of textual integrity, there is no possible way to vindicate the Quran.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Manuscript Genocide and the Illusion of Harmony

In the comments section of our last post, Islam2009 said: "Is Mark 16:9-20 the word of God, David? Have a guess!"

I'm absolutely astounded when Muslims make these sorts of comments, not only because of their ignorance of NT criticism, but also because of their utter inconsistency.

In Christianity, we can actually investigate whether Mark 16:9-20 was originally part of the Gospel of Mark. We can examine early manuscripts (which suggest that the ending of Mark was not part of the original) and literary style (which suggests that the ending of Mark was not part of the original). Are scholars "guessing" when they say that Mark 16:9-20 wasn't part of Mark's Gospel? Not at all. Christians have the evidence, and people are free to examine it.

Let's compare this with the situation in Islam. What happens when we examine the earliest codices of the Qur'an? Nothing, since Uthman burned them all to end disputes about all the differences! We can't examine the differences between Zaid's codex and Ibn Masud's codex, since Muslims have deliberately and systematically destroyed the evidence.

I have a few questions for Islam2009.

Are Surah 1, Surah 113, and Surah 114 supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Ibn Masud (Muhammad's top choice as a teacher of the Qur'an) says no. Zaid says yes. Who's right? Have a guess, Islam2009 (though my money's on the man Muhammad believed was more reliable; feel free to go against your prophet on this one, though).

Are Ibn Ka'b's two additional Surahs supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Ibn Ka'b (Muhammad's top choice as a reciter of the Qur'an) says yes. Zaid says no. Who's right? Have a guess, Islam2009.

According to Aisha and Ibn Ka'b, two-thirds of Surah 33 is missing. Were these missing verses supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Have a guess, Islam2009.

According to Aisha, after she wrote down the Verse of Stoning and the Verse of Suckling and laid them under her pillow, a goat ate them. The Verse of Stoning and the Verse of Suckling aren't part of the Qur'an today. Were they supposed to be? Have a guess, Islam2009.

According to Sahih Muslim, the early Muslims used to recite entire Surahs that they later forgot. Were these Surahs supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Have a guess, Islam2009.

Ibn Umar told Muslims that they shouldn't say that they have learned all of the Qur'an, since much of it is missing. Were these missing parts supposed to be part of the Qur'an? Have a guess, Islam2009.

Notice the difference between Christianity and Islam. Christian scholars are doing everything in their power to find earlier manuscripts. Christians want the earliest data, so that we can examine the evidence and make reasoned evaluations. We know that we have nothing to fear from the evidence, since the evidence always confirms what we believe. By contrast, Muslims burn their evidence, and whenever history shows that Muslim beliefs are false, Muslims reject or radically reinterpret the evidence and stubbornly cling to their falsified beliefs. Then they point a finger at Christians and say, "Look how bad the situation is in Christianity!" Yes, shame on us for respecting the evidence and going where it points. I suppose I could just deny all the evidence the way Muslims do, but I can't bring myself to embrace that sort of closed-mindedness.

Friday, January 9, 2009

Seven Ahruf: The Qur'anic Escape Clause

Here is a simple question for Muslims: What does it mean to say that the Qur'an has been "perfectly preserved"?

I asked my friend this question last weekend, and his first response was that there have never been any changes in the text of the Qur'an. From an earlier post, we know that this claim is not verifiable: the earliest Quranic manuscripts were all systematically destroyed by Uthman. Beyond that, we know that this claim misses the point: there was plenty of controversy amongst the earliest Quranic scholars over what should even be considered "Quran". The Quran was not even a solid enough concept to be changable!

But there's more. When I pointed out to my friend that, in fact, there were differences in the manuscripts that Uthman sent out to the provinces and that there were variations in word usage, my reference was made to the hadith in which Muhammad says that there were seven ahruf.

Narrated by Umar bin Al Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah's Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me." The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way." He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, "It was revealed in this way. The Qur'an has been revealed in seven ahruf, so recite it in the way that is easier for you."

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith #3.601


Letting aside Umar's temperament, we see that he is shocked to find out that the Qur'an has been revealed in more ways than one. Indeed, the great Quran teacher Ubay b. Kaab had a similar response to this news, momentarily even doubting the Truth of Islam! (Until Muhammad punched him, that is):

Ubay: “…there occurred in my mind a sort of denial and doubt that did not exist even in the time of Jaahilliyah (before Islaam)! When the Messenger (PBUH) saw how I was affected, he struck my chest, whereupon I started sweating, and felt as though I were looking at Allaah in fear! Then the Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘O Ubay! A message was sent to me to recite the Qur’aan in one harf, but I requested (Allaah) to make things easy on my nation. A second message came that I should recite the Qur’aan in two ahruf, but I again made the same request. I was then ordered to recite the Qur’aan in seven ahruf.’”

Narrated by Muslim.


But what exactly is meant by the term "ahruf"? Let's turn to Muhammad for an answer:

...unfortunately, Muhammad does not elaborate on what the ahruf exactly are. So let's turn to his companions for more details:

...it seems none of his companions shares details on this concept of ahruf, either. If we are to gain any valid, non-speculative information about the ahruf, we should turn to the first three generations of Muslims, known as the salaf:

...as it turns out, no one in the salaf era actually expounded upon the concept of ahruf. Muslim scholars have wrestled with the concept of the seven ahruf for centuries, often concluding that no one knows exactly what they are except Allah!

We must conclude, then, Muhammad essentially said the following: there are seven ways in which the Quran was revealed, and there's no explicit limit to these differences. I posit that this ahruf clause allows so much elasticity for Muslims that they would use it to justify 7 entirely different Qurans if they were to exist! Indeed, we do see Muslims trying to explain the variants in the earliest Quranic manuscripts with this concept.

To summarize some of the past 2 weeks' blogs on the Quran:
  1. There really is no actual difference between the "perfectly preserved" Quran and an un-preserved book from antiquity. Both have been through sifting, sorting, variations, missing passages, editions, etc.
  2. The Quranic text can never be shown to be "perfectly preserved" because the crucial evidence was systematically destroyed by Uthman.
  3. The scholars Muhammad chose to teach the Quran disagreed on the contents of the Quran, including which words, verses, and even chapters to include.
  4. The earliest manuscripts in our posession do not indicate "perfect preservation"; they have variants in each one of them.
  5. Some of the variants match the opinion of Quran teachers who stood against Zaid as he compiled the predecessor of today's Quran.
  6. Even if it can be proven that there were up to seven different readings of the Quran, Muhammad's concept of the seven ahruf will provide an escape clause for Muslims.

O Muslim friends! Do ye say "perfect preservation?" Then explain this claim if ye be of those who pursue truth! And if ye cannot do it, and ye will never be able to do it, then desist from your baseless assumptions. And Jesus is most forgiving, ever-merciful.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Response to Javier on Child Brides

Notice how things work on this blog. I say something like "Muhammad had sex with Aisha when she was nine" (factual statement), or "Muslims in Nigeria are resisting a minimum-age law for marriage" (factual statement). Then a Muslim replies with a series of speculations, fallacies, or outright deception, as if these are enough to answer my factual statements. Let's consider Javier's comments as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

JAVIER: David Wood you very well know that the Christians in Africa do this kind of act and in India hindus and Christians,Muslims marry girls at very low age which is a bit more prevailant with poor people.

So, since Christians, Muslims, and Hindus have been known to marry girls at a young age, I'm somehow being inconsistent when I point out that Muslims do it. Does this response refute my point? Not at all. My point is that Muslims demand the right to have sex with nine-year-old girls because that's what Muhammad did. A Christian would have no basis for making such an argument. Hence, there's a tremendous difference here. Christians are free to act in the best interest of women. Muslims are held back morally by the example set by Muhammad.

JAVIER: And not to mention your God=Holy spirit=jesus sexually impregnated mary at 11 or 12 and joseph who was 90 years old when he married Mary at 12. Oops isn't that pedophilia according to Christians of today which means Jesus, joseph God was pedophile ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC.

According to my logic? Does my logic tell me that Mary was 11 or 12? Not at all. I don't believe she was that young, though Javier may feel free to provide evidence for his claim. Until he provides evidence, all he's given us is a baseless speculation (all too common in his comments). Apart from this, I can't figure out why Muslims compare the Christian view of Joseph with the Muslim view of Muhammad. Joseph isn't the source of any Christian doctrine. In other words, it wouldn't affect Christianity in the slightest if Joseph turned out to be, say, an axe-murderer. [Note to Christian readers: I'll ignore the fact that Javier said we believe that the Holy Spirit equals Jesus. Here Javier has displayed his ignorance of Christian doctrine, but there's really no point in correcting him.]

JAVIER: PROOF=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm

Now here's an amazing thing. Javier gives us a link and calls it "proof" that Mary was "11 or 12." Nowhere does this article say that Mary was 11 or 12! Indeed, the only reference to Mary's age is based on apocryphal writings that say she was "twelve to fourteen years of age." However, the text also says that these apocryphal accounts are unreliable, so I'm not sure how this qualifies as "proof," in any sense of the word.

So what do we have? As proof that Mary was "11 or 12," Javier links to an article which says that unreliable accounts list her age as 12 to 14. Is there any "proof" here that Mary was 11 or 12? Not a shred. [Nor is there any proof that Joseph was "90 years old." Again, this is based on apocryphal accounts. However, if Javier is willing to grant that everything in these apocryphal accounts is correct, I'd like to share a few passages with him. If Javier is consistent, he'll have to reject Islam and become a Christian! The only alternative is for him to reject the apocrypha. But if he rejects the apocrypha, why would he point to such texts as "proof"??? Sheer inconsistency!]

JAVIER: And marrying girls at one year old is a direct violation of islamic law unless she reached puberty and is capable of making decision.

I would like for Javier to show me this law in a reliable source. Muhammad married Aisha when she was six, and she certainly hadn't reached puberty at that age. Moreover, the Qur'an disagrees with Javier on this. Surah 65:4 gives Muslims rules on how to divorce a girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. It's clear that if Muslims are allowed to divorce prepubescent girls, they are allowed to marry prepubescent girls. [Notice, everyone, that Javier makes a claim that runs contrary to both his prophet and the Qur'an. This is all too common in Islam.]

JAVIER: People in Africa, Asia tend to give away their daughter because of poverty its not an Islamic problem, its cultural problem. yes there are exceptions.

It's an Islamic problem when people refuse to act in the best interest of little girls because Muhammad is considered to be the greatest moral example in history. The United Nations has been begging Muslim countries to make laws that will protect little girls, but men who follow the example of Muhammad will always resist such laws.

JAVIER: But think about the Christian priest molesting children of all gender even males which is why the pope got really into it.

No true Christian will hesitate, for even a second, to say that these priests were sinning when they did this. Moreover, these priests certainly weren't following the example of Jesus when they molested children. Can Javier say the same about marrying young girls? Can he say (1) that Muslims who marry young girls aren't following the example of Muhammad, and (2) that men who marry young girls are sinning? I would like for Javier to say both of these.

JAVIER: And by the way Muslims countries are placing laws making it illegal to marry before 18 years of age.

Notice the generalization: "Muslim countries" (as if all Muslim countries are doing this). All Javier has said here is that Muslims in some Muslim countries, usually under pressure from the West, have decided to live better lives than Muhammad lived. Amen to that, my friends. I hope that all Muslims will reject Muhammad's example and will cease having sex with young girls.

Just to review, Javier claimed (a) that some Christians (not following the example of Jesus) have married young girls [IRRELEVANT, SINCE THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY OBJECTION]; (b) that Mary was 11 or 12 [SHEER SPECULATION, SINCE NOT EVEN THE SITE HE APPEALS TO AS "PROOF" SAYS THIS]; (c) that Muslim men may only marry girls who have reached puberty [HERE HE CONTRADICTS BOTH MUHAMMAD'S EXAMPLE AND THE QUR'AN]; (d) that this isn't a Muslim problem [DESPITE THE FACT THAT MUSLIMS ARE DEFENDING THIS PRACTICE BASED ON THE EXAMPLE OF MUHAMMAD]; (e) that certain Catholic priests have molested children [THIS RESPONSE IS SO BAD THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN QUALIFY AS A TU QUOQUE FALLACY; HE'S SIMPLY THROWN OUT A RANDOM ATTACK THAT DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER THE POINT]; and (f) that "Muslim countries" are deciding to follow the example of the West rather than the example of Muhammad [I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS HELPS HIS CASE].

The amazing thing is that, when most Muslims read a response like Javier's, they think he has thoroughly refuted the Christian argument. In reality, he has refuted absolutely nothing.

Convert to Christianity Raped and Tortured by Egyptian Police

I don't know what's more shocking: (A) the fact that religiously motivated rape and torture are still so common in the Muslim world, or (B) the fact that Muslims on this blog will be more outraged that I posted this article than they will be outraged at the actions of their fellow Muslims.

Egypt (MNN) ― A report by ASSIST News Service states that while attempting to escape ongoing persecution in Egypt, a Muslim convert was raped and tortured.

Martha Samuel, an Egyptian Muslim who converted to Christianity five years ago, was arrested at the Cairo airport as she was leaving for Russia with her family. Police have promised to release her if she returns to Islam.

In a story covered by the Assyrian International News Agency (AINA), the Egypt for Christ ministry reports that police officers sexually assaulted Samuel both at the National Security office in Heliopolis and at the El-Nozha police station. In a continued attempt to force her return to Islam, police also beat and tortured Samuel. According to AINA, Samuel's children, aged four and two years old, are being denied food to increase pressure on Samuel. Her husband has been taken to the National Security office in Alexandria.

AINA said that the family was trying to travel to Russia using a passport belonging to Samuel, whose former name is Zainab Said Abdel-Aziz. The passport was under Samuel's Christian name, which is on a list of people prohibited from leaving the country. Since converting five years ago, Samuel has undergone continued persecution by Egyptian police, and her own family has tried to murder her.
SOURCE.

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Child Brides in Nigeria

Nigeria is comprised of thirty-six states, with Muslims dominating the north and Christians more numerous in the south. The government is attempting to impose a minimum age for marriage (girls won't be allowed to marry until they're 18). Guess which states are resisting, and guess whose example they're following.

The Onion: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Muslim Kindergarten Celebration

Nothing to worry about here.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Ibn, Stop Fibbin! (The Lengths Muslims Will Go To!)

In the comments section of my last post, Ibn declared that the New Testament supports deception. He said:

The lengths Christians will go to! Then again, their deceptive activities are supported by scripture. 1Corinthians 9:19-24

The irony of this absurd claim is astounding. Apart from the fact that Paul doesn't support deception at all, nearly everyone who reads this blog knows that Ibn's prophet does support deception. Even more ironic is that Ibn has to be deceptive in his desperate effort to make Paul sound deceptive. Amazing!

Let's compare Paul's words with Muhammad's. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul is discussing his liberty as a Christian and as an apostle, along with the constraints he freely places on himself for the sake of the Gospel. He begins the chapter by noting that, even though he has the right to get married and to receive funding from the Corinthian church, he chooses instead to remain celibate and to support himself financially by working. Later in the chapter, Paul explains why he doesn't take full advantage of other liberties: Even though he is free, he won't put a stumbling block before others.

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

Is Paul advocating deception here, as Ibn claims? Certainly not. Paul is simply saying that when he's around Jews, he won't eat pork, etc. When he's around gentiles, he's not going to live according to Jewish restrictions. For Paul, food, clothing, pleasure, and so on, are all secondary. What's important is the truth of the Gospel. Thus, he's not going to let something like food preferences get in the way of preaching the Gospel.

Yet Ibn claims that this is deception. Here we simply have to disagree. When I am around Muslims, I don't eat pork, because I don't want to offend them over something as silly as food. Am I trying to deceive anyone by not eating pork? Not at all. If anyone asks me, I will gladly tell them my view. But if I'm going to offend someone, I want it to be over something important, not over something completely insignificant.

According to Ibn, it would be entirely appropriate for me to show up to a mosque eating a ham sandwich. I disagree. The difference between our views, it seems, comes down to whether we have any respect for other people's feelings and beliefs. Since I have respect for people who disagree with me, I don't want to offend them over nonessentials. According to Ibn, we should have no such respect for those who disagree with us.

Hence, Ibn's claim only holds if we're willing to admit that respect equals deception. I doubt even Ibn would claim this, so we have to ask ourselves why Muslims are so desperate to attack the apostle Paul. Quite simply, Muslims need to attack Paul because they need to blame someone for the fact that early Christianity is nothing like the early Christianity preached by Muhammad. Muslims need to say that someone corrupted the religion and destroyed all evidence that Jesus was a Muslim, so they blame Paul.

But there's another reason Muslims are willing to misrepresent Paul in an attempt to discredit him. When we place Paul side by side with Muhammad, Muhammad doesn't look very good. Muslims therefore have to resort to deception in an effort to bring Paul down to Muhammad's level. Ibn does this by saying that Paul advocates deception. He apparently thinks that this will draw our attention away from the fact that Islam advocates deception.

According to Sahih Muslim 6303, it’s okay for a Muslim to lie if he's doing it to bring reconciliation to people, or if he's trying to avoid a dispute, or if he's doing something good.

In Sahih al-Bukhari 4037, Muhammad allows his followers to lie and pretend to be friends with a Jewish merchant named Ka'b in order to assassinate him.

Surah 3:28 says that Muslims are not to take unbelievers as friends; however, the verse gives one exception. If a Muslim feels threatened by unbelievers, he can pretend to be their friend. In a commentary on this verse, Ibn Kathir says that if Muslims feel threatened by non-Muslims, they are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly. He adds that Abu Darda said, “We smile in the face of some people, although our hearts curse them.” Imam Bukhari says that Taqiyya “is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.”

Consider also a modern Muslim scholar's comments on the above verse (3:28):

This verse explains all the verses quoted above which forbid taking the kaafirs as friends in general terms. What that refers to is in cases where one has a choice, but in cases of fear and taqiyah it is permissible to make friends with them, as much as is essential to protect oneself against their evil. That is subject to the condition that one’s faith should not be affected by that friendship and the one who is behaves in that manner out of necessity is not one who behaves in that manner out of choice. . . .

Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on mixing with the kuffaar and treating them kindly hoping that they will become Muslim. He replied:

Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to hate the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’” [al-Mumtahanah 60:4]

“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself” [al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth” [al-Mumtahanah 60:1]

But if a Muslim treats them with kindness and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly. Source

We may compare this with the Apostle Paul's view:

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we received mercy, we do not lose heart, but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:1-2)

Let's review the facts. Islam allows deception, while Christianity condemns it. Yet Ibn condemns Christianity for allowing deception, and overlooks the fact that his own religion allows deception (and, therefore, should be condemned, according to Ibn). Moreover, in order to show that Christianity allows deception, Ibn tries to deceive us by misrepresenting the teachings of Paul. Will his fellow Muslims condemn him for his deception? Why would they?

Islam's Amazingly Unfalsifiable Claims--Part Two: Science or Science Fiction?

One of the most popular arguments for Islam is the “Argument from Scientific Accuracy.” Muslims claim that Muhammad uttered scientific statements that were only verified in modern times, and that Muhammad’s miraculous scientific insights are proof that Islam is true.

On the surface, this claim seems to be falsifiable. That is, it seems that Muslims are giving us an argument that we can test by examining Muhammad’s claims and seeing whether they are scientifically accurate. However, just as we learned when we examined the “Argument from Perfect Preservation,” there is usually no real way to falsify Muslim claims, for any evidence that would falsify the claims is either thrown out or radically reinterpreted by Muslims.

The tactic employed by Muslim apologists is (1) to read a simple passage from the Qur’an or Hadith, (2) to twist and stretch the interpretation as far their imaginations will take them, (3) to insert a bunch of scientific terminology into the interpretation, and (4) to proclaim that there is absolutely no way an illiterate, seventh-century leader could have revealed all these scientific insights without the help of God. After hearing such arguments, Muslims typically stand in awe. Others stand there wondering, “Where did the passage say that?”

Consider what happens when a non-Muslim attempts to examine Muhammad’s claims. He opens the Qur’an and reads Surah 86, which declares that semen proceeds from an area between the ribs and the spine. Surely this would falsify the Muslim argument, wouldn’t it? Not at all! Our Muslim friends reply that, since the cells that ultimately form the genitals are a bit higher up during embryological development, there is nothing wrong with Muhammad’s claim (despite the fact that Muhammad clearly wasn’t talking about embryological development). Hence, a passage which is so clear that it should automatically falsify the Muslim claim turns out to be no problem whatsoever.

What does the Qur’an say about embryological development? According to 22:5, 23:12-14, 40:67, and 75:37-39, humans go through a blood clot stage in the womb. Since the developing embryo is never a blood clot, don’t we have a rather obvious scientific error here? “No!” replies the Muslim. “Since the fetus kind of looks like a clot of blood, the Qur’anic description is accurate.” Once again, a clear error presents no problem at all for the Muslim.

We can go on and on with scientific errors in the Muslim sources. For instance, Surah 18:86 tells us that Alexander the Great traveled so far west, he found the place where the sun sets (it sets in a pool of murky water). Surah 67:5 and the Hadith tell us that stars are missiles that God uses to shoot demons when they try to sneak into Heaven (note: when we see shooting stars, it’s because God became angry and hurled a star at a demon). In Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 3320, Muhammad tells his followers that, if a fly falls into their drink, they should dunk the fly in the drink, since one of the fly’s wings has a disease, while the other wing has the cure for the disease.” According to both Sahih al-Bukhari, Number 3326, and Sahih Muslim, Number 6809, Muhammad told his followers that Adam was 90 feet tall, and that people have been shrinking since the time of Adam. In Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 67, we read about a situation in which some Muslims needed water. They asked Muhammad whether it was okay to use water from the well of Buda’ah, which was filled with dead dogs, used menstrual cloths, and human excrement. Muhammad replied, “Truly, water is clean and is not defiled by anything.”

Wouldn’t these and other passages disconfirm the Muslim claim that Muhammad’s miraculous scientific insights prove that Islam is true? Apparently not. Indeed, when we examine Muslim responses to Muhammad’s scientific errors, we find that Muhammad could have said virtually anything, no matter how absurd, and Muslims would accept it without question. I call this the “Miracle of Reinterpretation.”

In order to believe in the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an and the Hadith, we must be willing to reinterpret anything that is scientifically false. But surely it is unreasonable for Muslims to expect us to interpret Muhammad’s statements in the most favorable light imaginable, especially when his reliability as a prophet is what we’re investigating. The Argument from Scientific Accuracy is meant to prove that Muhammad was a true prophet, but in order to prove their point, Muslims have to assume that Muhammad was a true prophet and that he therefore couldn’t have made any errors. This makes the Muslim method of scriptural interpretation a classic example of circular reasoning. A short discussion of the argument might go something like this:

Muslim: “There is only one God, and Muhammad is his prophet!”
Questioner: “I have my doubts about that second part. Why should I accept it?”
Muslim: “You should accept the fact that Muhammad is God’s prophet because Muhammad said that he was God’s prophet!”
Questioner: “You’re assuming that everything Muhammad says was true, but how can I know that?”
Muslim: “You can know it because of the amazing scientific accuracy of the Qur’an!”
Questioner: “But what about stellar missiles that hit demons, the sun setting in the ocean, and man forming from a blood-clot? What about all these passages?”
Muslim: “Those passages have to be reinterpreted!”
Questioner: “But why should we reinterpret them? Muhammad didn’t say that he was using figurative language when he said those things. Indeed, he seems to take them quite literally.”
Muslim: “Muhammad couldn’t have meant those verses to be taken literally.”
Questioner: “Why not?”
Muslim: “Because he’s God’s greatest prophet, and a prophet would never believe such things!”

The problem with the Muslim methodology is that it could be used to prove that any ancient figure was a prophet of God, especially when many ancients made claims which, unlike Muhammad’s, actually were scientifically accurate. For instance, Thales of Miletus was able to predict a solar eclipse in 585 B.C. One could use this to argue that he must have been inspired by God. However, Thales also proclaimed that everything is composed of water, an idea that now seems absurd. Nevertheless, by employing Islam’s Miracle of Reinterpretation, we can justify just about any scientific theory in history. For instance, if I were to use Muslim tactics in defending Thales’ position that everything is made of water, I could make the following argument:

The Prophet Thales claimed that everything is made of water. That’s obviously not true, but Thales was a prophet, so he couldn’t have been wrong. So what could he have meant? Well, consider the composition of water. It is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Most of the mass in the universe is in the form of hydrogen, and all living things use oxygen in some way. Thus, we have in Thales’ statement a full description of the universe--the non-living, predominantly hydrogen part, and the living, oxygen-using part! But how could Thales have known these things unless God revealed them to him? Truly this man must be a prophet!

This sort of reasoning will seem comical to anyone who isn’t a committed Muslim, but for some reason, it is almost universally accepted as valid in the Islamic world.

Here we must ask ourselves: What is the difference between the Qur’an (which contains many scientific errors that can only be avoided by resorting to the most absurd reinterpretations) and any other seventh-century book (which will probably contain many scientific errors that can only be avoided by resorting to the most absurd reinterpretations)? As far as the texts are concerned, there’s no difference at all. They both contain scientific errors. The only reason the texts are viewed differently is that Muslims will do anything to reinterpret the errors in their holy book.

Thus, the claim that the Muslim sources are scientifically accurate (much like the claim that the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved) is completely, utterly, totally meaningless. Since the “scientific accuracy” of the Qur’an is no different from the scientific inaccuracy of any other book, Muslims who say that science confirms Islam are really saying, “If you examine the Qur’an, you'll see that it contains only true scientific statements, provided you’re willing to radically reinterpret all the obviously scientifically false statements.” But isn't this true of any book? Of course it is. Hence, unless Muslims are willing to grant that every book in history that has ever offered a scientifically true or false statement is revealed by God, they should stop offering unfalsifiable claims as evidence for Islam.