Muslims Assault Reporter outside Detroit Mosque

Hmmmm. Now where have I seen Muslims in Michigan get violent towards someone with a camera?

David, Sam, and Mary Jo on ABN This Friday, Saturday, and Sunday

It's that time again! "Jesus or Muhammad" this weekend on ABN, with special guest Mary Jo Sharp of Confident Christianity! Here's the schedule.

FRIDAY
6:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
10:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.

SATURDAY
6:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M.
10:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.

SUNDAY
6:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M.
10:30 P.M.-1:30 A.M.

We look forward to calls from Muslims. (We expect to hear from Osama, but we would love to hear from WomanforTruth.)

To watch the program, simply visit ABN's website and click the third box on the right for live-streaming.

Osama Abdallah Proclaims: "Christians Are the Biggest Trash and Losers in the Christian World!"

In response to a video showing Muslim violence in France, Osama Abdallah has apologized for violence in the name of Allah, and has dedicated his life to fighting against terrorism and extremism. No wait, he didn't do that at all. Instead, he did what Muslims typically do when Muslim atrocities are pointed out. He attacked Christians, saying, "THE CHRISTIANS ARE THE BIGGEST TRASH AND LOSERS in the christian world."

Now where would a Muslim get the idea that Christians are horrible people, when so many Muslims claim that Islam respects Christians?

Qur'an 8:55--Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

Qur'an 98:6--Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikun will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

Hmmm. Given the fact that Christians are such horrible creatures (according to both the Qur'an and Osama), it seems that Muslims should treat us like garbage whenever they're strong enough to do so. Wait! That's exactly what Muslims were doing in the video!

*****UPDATE***** Osama isn't letting up. He just added:

TRULY, JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ARE INDEED, BY THE ABSOLUTE FARTHEST, THE FILTHIEST SCUMS OF ALL HUMANS ON PLANET EARTH, with the exception of few who were promised Paradise by Allah Almighty!

So Osama agrees with the Qur'an on this one.

He also added in the comments section here an open condemnation of America, calling it "the great babel and prostitute of the bible."

There's certainly nothing to worry about when Muslims right here in America have absolutely no loyalty to America and want to see it fall.

A Reply To Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part Two

The following is a continuation of the post found here.

The previous post demonstrated that Sam was justified in asserting that the Jews expected a Jewish prophet, a fact that forces Muslims to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews of John 1:19-21 could have been mistaken in believing the Prophet and the Christ to be separate individuals. This led Sam to point out that John’s Gospel as a whole affirms their belief that the Prophet would be an Israelite, but confutes their expectation that the Prophet would be someone other than the Messiah Himself.

Unhappy with the conclusion Sam drew from the evidence on this score, Yahya accuses him of engaging in textual acrobatics, but in Yahya’s efforts to prove this harebrained charge he ends up looking like an exegetical cat on hot textual bricks, as the reader is invited to see.

(The following picks up my enumeration where I left off.)

*******

8. Presumably because the passage does not specifically identify Jesus as “the Prophet” and “the Christ,” Yahya dismisses the relevance of the testimony found in John 1:45, where it is written:

Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Yet, if Yahya would continue to read the chapter, he would find not only that Nathanael identified Jesus as the Messiah, saying, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel,” but that he did so in response to Christ’s display of prophetic insight into his character and the circumstances surrounding his calling, all of which shows just what Nathanael understood Philip to mean when he spoke of Jesus as the one foretold by Moses and the Prophets:

The next day He purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!" Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel." (John 1:43-49)

It is also well to observe that this passage is not only found in the same chapter as the discussion of John 1:19ff, but it is quickly followed in John’s Gospel by Jesus performing a Moses-like miracle, i.e. changing water into wine, as we see in the next chapter.

9. With respect to John 5:39-40, which says,

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”

Yahya tells us that these verses don’t shed any further light on the matter, for they don’t call Jesus the Christ and the Prophet.

Aside from the fact that Yahya completely glossed over the other verses that Sam quoted along with verses 39-40, namely, verses 46-47, where Jesus says that He is the one spoken of by Moses, this reply shows once again that Yahya has absolutely no regard for context.

The words of Christ found in John 5 are once again followed in the next chapter by a Moses-like miracle, i.e. the miracle of feeding five thousand people, a sign that harkened back to the Manna that was provided for the people of Israel from heaven under Moses’ ministry.

10. In fact, it is this very miracle that led the people to say, as Sam pointed out:

Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, "This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world." (John 6:14)

In response to this, Yahya makes what is perhaps his greatest blunder:

Again, this reference does not prove Shamoun’s belief that “the Prophet” and the Christ was the same person. All this reference teaches us is that a group of people saw Jesus performing a “miraculous sign” and then they believed him to be “the Prophet”. There is no mention of the people calling him the Christ as well in this passage and nor is there any mention of the people exclaiming the two are the same person. Suffice it to say Shamoun interpolates his own understanding and imposes it upon the people of this passage without any authority or logical reasoning whatsoever. Even if we go with the view that Jesus is “the Prophet” then the question of who was the Christ arises.

Yahya’s blunder is exposed by the verse that immediately follows:

So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone. (John 6:15)

This verse clearly shows that these Jews believed the Prophet and the Christ, i.e. the Messianic King, would be the same person, and, consequently, leave Mr. Snow and his argument out in the cold.

Although I have much more that I would like to say on this and one point in particular that I am saving for a special occasion – to be released once I think Yahya has been sufficiently prepped and primed – it just doesn’t seem right not to give Mr. Snow a chance to scrabble his way up from the bottom of the avalanche he presently finds himself buried under. Accordingly, I will break off my reply here for now.

Muslims Torture and Behead Woman on Camera

In the comments section of our video on the fall of France, WomanforTruth101 declared:

I dont see islam in many muslim countries. But however it is proving my faith true with every bomb that goes off, with every threat, with every scandal etc.

The idea seems to be that violence in the name of Islam is some kind of confirmation that Islam is true. (Correct me if I've misinterpreted your words, WomanforTruth.)

Well, here's more confirmation that Islam is true.

*****WARNING***** This video contains graphic violence. If you found it difficult to stomach Al Qaeda's Schoolyard Massacre, don't watch this video.



I will ask Muslims again: Since you are trying to propagate Islam in the West, how do you propose to stop the rise of violent Islamic groups when Islam spreads? If you know how to control such groups, why don't you control them in Muslim countries? If you can't control them, wouldn't you agree that non-Muslims should be strongly opposed to the spread of Islam?

Farewell, France

France generously brought millions of Muslims to its lovely country. The Muslims thanked France by turning it into the countries they were fleeing from. I suspect it's too late for France to turn things around. But it's not too late for the rest of us to take note.



And now I'll ask the Muslims who are going to comment here: How are you going to stop this from happening in the UK, Canada, and the US, when Muslim numbers rise?

Rifqa Bary Interview--Transcript and Audio

Rifqa Bary was interviewed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to determine whether she was in danger in Ohio for converting from Islam to Christianity. Interestingly, the FDLE declared that it would be inappropriate to investigate whether Islam calls for the deaths of apostates, and said that they refuse to look into the matter. (If they had, they would have discovered the facts presented here.) This, of course, made it Rifqa's word vs. the word of her parents, of Taqiyya-practicing Muslims, and of the Muslim-backing media. (Rifqa's parents were also interviewed. While Rifqa was forced to be alone during her interview, her parents were permitted to have members of CAIR in the room for support.) The FDLE concluded, despite Rifqa's testimony, that she is in no danger from Muslims. She has already been returned to Ohio, where she awaits her first hearing there. The audio of the interview can be heard here, and the transcript can be read here.

Sam Shamoun vs. Yahya Snow on the Implications of John 1:19-21

This exchange has been painful to listen to. I don't see how Yahya can't get a basic point. Muslims appeal to Jewish expectation in John 1 and claim that, since certain Jews were apparently expecting three different people (the Messiah, Elijah, and the Prophet), "the Prophet" must be someone other than Jesus, and, for some reason, must therefore be Muhammad.

Apart from the obvious difficulties associated with claiming that Muhammad is "the Prophet like Moses" of Deuteronomy 18:18 (e.g. the fact that Muhammad was not a Jew, could not perform miracles, did not speak with God face to face, and was clearly condemned as a false prophet just two verses later in Deuteronomy 18:20), there is the absurdity of appealing to the expectations of certain Jews to prove a point, especially when the expectation in question has no grounding in any scripture and when the view was so limited in extent that we have no record of it outside of a small passage in the Gospel of John.

Sam addressed the major problem for Muslims, namely, that if they're appealing to the Jewish expectation that the Prophet would be distinct from the Messiah, they can't ignore the Jewish expectation that the Prophet would be an Israelite (since they approached John, who was an Israelite). In other words, if Muslims believe that Jewish expectations about the Prophet were correct, the Jews should have gone to an Arab. But they didn't.

So Muslims must conclude that these Jews were wrong in their expectations. But how can Muslims say that the Jews were wrong in their expectations and then appeal to Jewish expectation as evidence for their Prophet? Welcome to the most inconsistent religion in the world, my friends.

Amazingly, rather than reject the absurd Muslim argument as any intellectually honest examiner would, Yahya Snow has attempted to refute Sam's arguments. But Yahya just can't seem to grasp the most basic points. For instance, he declares that, according to Sam's reasoning, the Jews must have expected the Messiah to have a natural birth, because they asked John if he was the Messiah. But this misses the point entirely. Sam isn't appealing to Jewish expectation. Sam is claiming that it's a mistake to base one's case on Jewish expectation, and he points out the fact that the Jews were expecting a Jewish prophet in order to show Muslims that their claim is self-refuting. Yet Yahya just doesn't seem to get this, and he's posting videos to defend his total misunderstanding both of John's Gospel and of Sam's arguments.

Here's a review of the exchange so far, beginning with the relevant passage from John.

John 1:19-23--This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not " "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." Then they said to him, "Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?" He said, "I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,' as Isaiah the prophet said."

(Shockingly, Yahya claims that there's no indication in the text that John believed he was preparing the way for God. Did anyone catch verse 23?

Sam's First Argument:



Yahya's First Response:



Sam's Reply to Yahya:



Yahya's Second Response:



Yahya also wrote an article on this topic, which can be read here. Our very own Semper Paratus responded to Yahya's article here.

I have something more from Sam on this issue as well. When asked about Yahya's position, Sam sent the following email to a Christian:

Hey Bro,

Here is my reply. Let me know if it now makes sense.

As I said in the show we don’t know what the Baptist knew as far as the relationship between the Christ and the Prophet was concerned, and since we cannot enter his mind we have no business second-guessing him. It must be stated that God didn’t reveal everything to the prophets. He revealed only that which they needed to know, no more and no less.

However since Yahya is using the Baptist’s silence to prove his assertion he needs to continue reading a little further to see what the Baptist said concerning his role and function:

“John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, “Make straight the way for the Lord.”’” John 1:23

Here is the OT text that the Baptist was quoting:

“Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins. A voice of one calling: ‘In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all mankind together will see it. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.’… You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout, lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, ‘Here is your God!’ See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and his arm rules for him. See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young.” Isaiah 40:3-5, 9-11

According to Isaiah the voice, or herald, was to prepare for the coming of God, the appearance of the glory of Yahweh. In other words, Yahweh was going to appear visibly for all to see after the voice prepared the people for his coming.

Since the Baptist explicitly says that he is that voice this means that Jesus is Yahweh God since John himself says that he came to prepare his way:

“Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?' I baptize with water,' John replied, 'but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.’ … The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, “A man who comes after me has surpassed me BECAUSE HE WAS BEFORE ME.” I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.’ Then John gave this testimony: ‘I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.” I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.’" John 1:25-27, 29-34

It now makes sense why the Baptist could say that Jesus existed before him since Jesus is the God of the OT who was coming to reveal himself to his people and therefore existed long before the Baptist was born.

Moreover, John the Apostle mentions the testimony of the Baptist right after stating that Jesus is God and that he (as well as others) saw or beheld his glory:

“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. All things were made through him; nothing has been made without him that has been made. In him was life that life was the light of men… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, ‘This was he of whom I said, “He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.”’ John 1:1-4, 14-15

Notice the connection between the Apostle’s words here with Isaiah 40:3-5 and the glory of Yahweh which would be seen by all.

Thus, according to both Johns Jesus is the human appearance, the visible manifestation, of the OT God of Israel.

In light of this are you telling me that Muhammad is a prophet whom the Baptist would accept in light of what John’s Gospel tells us the Baptist believed about Christ?

But we’re not finished yet. Yahya tried to argue that the statements of these Jews who questioned the Baptist actually disprove my beliefs. He bases this on the fact that these Jews must have believed that the Christ would be born to human parents since they asked the Baptist whether he was the Christ. In other words, his logic goes like this:

A) The Jews wondered whether the Baptist was the Christ.

B) The Baptist was born to human parents.

C) Therefore, these Jews believed that Jesus would have a natural birth.

In his haste to refute me Yahya only manages to further embarrass both himself and his fellow Muslim apologists.

In the first place, I never based my position on what these Jews believed concerning Christ and the Prophet. Rather, MUSLIMS are the ones trying to use these Jews as evidence that the Prophet is someone distinct from the Christ. I was simply showing them what happens to their argument if they assume that the understanding of these particular Jews concerning these matters were correct.

And since Yahya has now mentioned another problem raised by the beliefs of these particular Jews he is going to have to be consistent and accept that these Jews were not only right that the Prophet is not the Christ but that the Christ would not be born supernaturally from a virgin. This means that not only is the New Testament wrong concerning the Messiah’s virginal conception and birth but Muhammad was also wrong for believing in Jesus’ miraculous birth to a virgin!

It gets even worse. According to Luke’s Gospel John’s father was a priest who officiated at the Temple. Being in such an important position he would not have been able to hide the fact that his wife was barren since it was plain to all that they had no children. Moreover, both the Holy Bible and the Quran state that John was born to his parents at a time when his father had passed the age of being able to impregnate a woman (Luke 1:5-25, 36, 39-45, 56-79; Quran 3:37-41; 19:1-15).

Thus, in light of Yahya’s fallacious logic this means that the Jews must have expected that both the Christ and the Prophet would be born supernaturally to an elderly barren woman and a father who had passed the age of being able to impregnate a woman. Yet since Jesus was born to a young virgin maiden and had no human father he could not be the Christ! Moreover, Muhammad cannot be that Prophet since his mother wasn’t barren and his father wasn’t old!

This leads to the other major problem raised by Yahya’s desperate polemics. Notice that he argued that the Baptist must have believed that the Christ and the Prophet were two distinct persons solely on the basis of his silence, e.g., the Baptist never objected to this distinction nor did he ever assert that Christ and the Prophet are the same entity. Yet by the same token the Baptist never objected to being the Christ on the grounds that he was born to human parents whereas the Christ had to be born supernaturally to a virgin. In fact, there is nothing to suggest that the Baptist knew or believed that the Christ would be supernaturally conceived by the Holy Spirit to a virgin who never had sex with a man.

Therefore, according to Yahya’s foolish reasoning this means that the Baptist also didn’t believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, but would be born to human parents instead. It further shows that the Baptist believed that the Christ and the Prophet would be born like him, e.g. born to an older barren woman whose elderly husband could no longer impregnate her!

Hence, according to the above factors Muhammad could not be that Prophet, but a false prophet whom the Baptist would have condemned, since Muhammad wasn’t born to an elderly barren woman or a father who couldn’t conceive children. Muhammad also personally believed in Jesus’ virgin birth, which neither the Baptist nor his Jewish interrogators believed!

In light of this do you see just how silly and desperate Yahya’s counter-points truly are?

Let me repeat. I did not nor do I base my position on what these Jewish interlocutors believed concerning the Christ and the Prophet. MUSLIMS LIKE YAHYA DO SO. Therefore, if these Jews were right then that means that the Prophet must be an Israelite and that both he and the Christ must be born through the process of sexual intercourse to an older man passed the age of being able to impregnate women and an elderly mother who was barren. If this is the case then Yahya has provided further evidence that Muhammad is a false prophet condemned by the Holy Bible, the Baptist, and these particular Jews since he wasn’t an Israelite whose parents were way pass the age of having children and erroneously believed that the Messiah was born supernaturally to a young blessed virgin maiden!

In other words, Yahya is now stuck with his fallacious reasoning and must abandon Muhammad as a fraud and deceiver!

Al Qaeda's Schoolyard Massacre

The men in this video were murdered in a schoolyard for attempting to become police officers in Iraq.

*****WARNING***** This video contains graphic violence.

Geert Wilders Speaks at Columbia University

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE


PART FOUR


PART FIVE

The Islamic Slave Trade: The Untold Story

Has anyone noticed that Christians ultimately draw attention to the misdeeds of misled Christians in the past, so that we can deal with them and not repeat them, while Muslims always manage to rewrite history in order to cover up their misdeeds?

The following documentary is in German, but there are English subtitles. (I'm hoping Shadid Lewis stops by to comment.)

PART ONE


PART TWO


PART THREE


PART FOUR


PART FIVE

Muhammad, Shirk, and the Satanic Verses

Geert Wilders Said it Best

From Geert Wilders on October 16th, 2009:

I have a problem with the Islamization of our societies. I have nothing against people, not individuals, not groups. I have nothing against Muslims. I know the majority of Muslims in our society are law abiding people, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I believe the more Islam we get in our free societies, the less freedom we will get. And I want to fight for what the Muslims call “kafirs”, all those non-Muslims, all those women, all those apostates, all those renegades, all those homosexuals that will pay a high price when Islam would become more dominant in our society.

A Reply to Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part One

In an article found here and here, an upstart Muslim apologist has attempted to write a refutation to brother Sam Shamoun’s short and extemporaneous but nonetheless devastating critique on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network (hereafter ABN) of the ill-conceived notion that John 1:19-21 has something to do with Muhammad (See here). In order to free Sam up for more pressing matters, the present writer has taken in hand to say something of what Sam himself would have said by way of response, especially if this dawagandist had called in to the broadcast to speak with Sam directly, something he was invited to do, but for some reason – no doubt a prudent one, at least when judged from the vantage point of the all too predictable outcome of such an exchange – declined. (In a future post, David will be providing some comments from Sam.)


************

With respect to Sam’s case on John 1, Yahya grants that it may have sounded pretty convincing to many people; yet, he says, with a little analysis it turns out to be full of holes. This means that if Yahya’s analysis doesn’t uncover these holes, then Sam’s response remains as it initially appeared: convincing.

In my estimation, Yahya’s refutation amounts to little more than a snow job (pun intended), an attempt to miss the obvious and abet others in doing the same. Here are my initial observations:

1. Yahya cites two examples of Muslim apologists who argue (so he says) from John 1 that Muhammad is “the Prophet”: 1) Jamal Badawi, in his pamphlet/paper “Muhammad in the Bible”; and 2) Zakir Naik, in his paper “Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.” However, the former never offers any argument for seeing the passage as a reference to Muhammad, and the latter never even so much as cites the passage. Moreover, Sam responded to Badawi’s paper long ago, “Answering Dr. Jamal Badawi: Muhammad in the Bible,” and, though Naik’s article hardly merits refutation, I’m sure if Yahya asks nicely, Sam would refute it as well. (Another response to Badawi, written by Samuel Green, can be found here.)

2. The above is most unfortunate, for with the exception of referring to the fanciful story that Muhammad miraculously fed his followers – obviously an embellished account by Muhammad’s overzealous followers to try and make him look more like Moses and Jesus – which contradicts the Qur’an (S. 28:48), Yahya completely avoids trying to personally prove that Muhammad is “the Prophet.”

3. Yahya also offers no positive evidence that the Prophet was predicted or even expected by the Jews to be a non-Israelite, and much less that the Jews expected the Prophet to be an Arab. Instead, Yahya contents himself with arguing that the evidence Sam provided does not prove that the Jews believed he was going to be an Israelite. (We will see)

4. The only thing Yahya really ends up trying to prove in his paper is the (relatively) uninteresting thesis that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people. But this, let it be remembered, and as Yahya grants at the end of his paper, is still a long ways off from proving that Muhammad was the prophet or even a prophet, a thesis Yahya wisely aborted anyway.

5. When it comes to the question of what the Jews believed about “the Prophet,” Yahya accuses Sam of reading his bias into the text, for nowhere in John 1 does it say that they believed “the Prophet” was going to be an Israelite. But Sam was talking about what the Jews assumed by their question, not what they said.

The salient facts that it was a delegation of Priests and Levites, i.e. Jews, who were sent by the Sanhedrin, i.e. Jews, to question John, a Jew, whether he was the Prophet promised to Israel, a nation of Jews, by Moses, a Jew, doesn’t seem to have affected Yahya very much. But if Sam’s view that the Jews assumed that the Prophet would be a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that they were questioning John the Baptist, is a case of reading his bias into the text, then what should we call it in Yahya’s case since he somehow sees a turban where everyone else can only see Yamakas?

(Nota Bene: It is important to keep in mind that Sam’s argument at this point was not that the prophet would be an Israelite simply because the Jews thought so; rather, he argued that if, as Muslims must concede, the Jews were mistaken in assuming that the prophet would be an Israelite, then Muslims also have to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews could have been wrong in drawing a distinction between “the Christ” and “the Prophet.”)

6. Since John (the Baptist) does not question or challenge the assumption of the Jews that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people – something easily accounted for by the fact that John is purposely being brief and dismissive in regard to himself, since his goal is to point people to the Messiah – Yahya says it suggests that John was aware of the distinction they drew and agreed with it. There are several responses to this:

a. Just because a person answers someone on their own terms, doesn’t mean they agree with their underlying assumptions. If it did, then this would backfire on Yahya; after all, it would mean that John also held the Jews’ assumption that “the Prophet” would be an Israelite. (See point #5)

b. If directly answering a person’s comments or questions without challenging all of their underlying assumptions is tantamount to agreeing with them, then it would also mean that Yahya accepts any assumption of Sam’s that he chose not to call into question; for example, that the Torah that we have was written by Moses.

c. Rather than seeing John’s terse replies as an indication that he agreed with the Jews, it can actually be argued that John answers “no, no and no” to their questions precisely because of their false assumptions.

7. By a happy “coincidence,” what Yahya is too blind to see, but prefers to write off as bias on Sam’s part, just happens to be exactly what we know from the historical record:

a) Not only do some ancient Jewish sources identify the Christ with the Prophet, but we have no evidence of any Jew of the time period who was expecting the Prophet to be a non-Jew or Arab.

b. In addition, even the Samaritans, according to authorities such as Grimm (Clavis N. T., p. 99) and Edersheim (LTJM, p. 278), believed the Christ and the Prophet to be designations that refer to one and the same person, and, therefore, to an Israelite.

c. In fact, the Jews of Muhammad’s time weren’t expecting a prophet from among the Arabs or pagans either; instead, they expected a prophet who would come to them and who would aid them against the disbelieving Arabs:

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me that some of his tribesmen said: ‘What induced us to accept Islam, apart from God’s mercy and guidance, was what we used to hear the Jews say. We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were people of the scriptures with knowledge which we did not possess. There was continual enmity between us, and when we got the better of them and excited their hate, they said, “The time of a prophet who is to be sent has now come. We will kill you with his aid as Ad and Iram perished.” We often used to hear them say this. When God sent His apostle we accepted him when he called us to God and we realized what their threat meant and joined him before them. We believed in him but they denied him…. (Sirat, p. 93)

Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me on the authority of some of the shaykhs of his tribe that they said that when the apostle met them he learned by inquiry that they were of the Khazraj and allies of the Jews. He invited them to sit with him and expounded to them Islam and recited the Quran to them. Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they themselves were polytheists and idolaters. They had often raided them in their district whenever bad feelings arose the Jews used to say to them, ‘A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill you by his aid as ‘Ad and Iram perished. So when they heard the apostle’s message they said one to another: This is the very prophet of whom the Jews warned us. Don’t let them get to him before us….(Sirat, p. 198)

According to what I heard from ‘Ikrima, freedman of Ibn ‘Abbas or from Sa’id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas, the Jews used to hope that the apostle would be a help to them against Aus and Khazraj before his mission began; and when God sent him from among the Arabs they disbelieved in him and contradicted what they had formerly said about him. Mu’adh b. Jabal and Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur brother of the B. Salama said to them: ‘O Jews, fear God and become Muslims, for you used to hope for Muhammad’s help against us when we were polytheists and to tell us that he would be sent and describe him to us.’ Salam b. Mishkam, one of B. al-Nadir, said, ‘He has not brought us anything we recognize and he is not the one we spoke of to you.’ (Sirat, p. 257)

….before this Messenger came to them, they used to ask Allah to aid them by his arrival, against their polytheistic enemies in war. They used to say to the polytheists, “A Prophet shall be sent just before the end of this world and we, along with him, shall exterminate you, just as the nations of ‘Ad and Iram were exterminated.” Also, Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Jews used to invoke Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over the Aws and Khazraj, before the Prophet was sent. When Allah sent him to the Arabs, they rejected him and denied what they used to say about him. Hence, Mu‘adh bin Jabal and Bishr bin Al-Bara’ bin Ma‘rur, from Bani Salamah, said to them, ‘O Jews! Fear Allah and embrace Islam. You used to invoke Allah for the coming of Muhammad and when we were still disbelievers and you used to tell us that he would come and describe him to us,’ Salam bin Mushkim from Bani Nadir replied, ‘He did not bring anything that we recognize. He is not the Prophet we told you about….Abu Al-‘Aliyah aid, “the Jews used to ask Allah to send Muhammad so that they would gain victory over the Arab disbelievers. They used to say, ‘O Allah! Send the Prophet that we read about – in the Tawrah – so that we can torment and kill the disbelievers alongside him.’ When Allah sent Muhammad and they saw that he was not one of them, they rejected him and envied the Arabs, even though they knew that he was the Messenger of Allah. (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Abridged, Vol. 1, p. 292-293)

(For part two, click here)

Great Britain Defends Free Speech and Admits Geert Wilders!

Things have been looking bloody awful in the U.K. over the past few years. It's as if Great Britain is rolling over and playing dead as Muslims attempt to convert the country to an Islamic Republic. But there's just been an amazing sign of life. Several months ago, leaders refused to allow Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to so much as enter the country (after all, we can't have anyone speaking freely against Islam here in the West).


That decision has been overturned, however, and Wilders returned to Britain to proclaim that Islam is violent, intolerant, and a threat to free speech. Predictably, Muslims responded to Wilders's charges by calling for his death and demanding the implementation of Sharia. Doesn't anybody bother to tell Muslims that they're actually helping Wilders when they respond with threats? Wilders's skyrocketing popularity can only be a sign that people are catching on. The conversation over the past few years seems to have gone something like this:


WILDERS: Islam is violent and intolerant.
PUBLIC: Nonsense. Islam is peaceful and loving, just like Christianity. Our Muslim friends told us so.
MUSLIMS: Death to Wilders! Down with the West!
WILDERS: You see, I told you that Islam is violent and intolerant.
PUBLIC: Umm, we're not quite sure we agree with you yet.
MUSLIMS: Off with his head! Anyone who insults Muhammad must die according to Islam! Freedom go to hell!
WILDERS: When are people going to listen to me when I say that Islam is violent and intolerant.
PUBLIC: Hmmm. You may have a point.
MUSLIMS: How dare he say that Islam is violent! Let him face us so we can murder him in the streets like Theo Van Gogh!

WILDERS AT PRESS CONFERENCE





MUSLIMS RESPOND (Hey! Didn't anyone tell these guys that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the death penalty is only supposed to be carried out in Muslim countries?)

Muslim Apologist Declares: "There is no minimum age for sex in Islam"

In the comments section of a previous post on Muhammad and Aisha, Osama Abdallah offers several criteria for a male or female Muslim to get married. His conclusion, however, is startling:

"So again, there is no number of minimum age in Islam, nor is the female having her first period a condition."

Osama rightly points out (as Surah 65:4 proclaims), that Muslim men are free to have sex with girls who haven't reached puberty, so long as certain other conditions obtain. According to Osama, those conditions are as follows:

1- The person "balagha ashudduh" has reached the age of physical strength. This obviously varies from person to person. A 9 or 10-year old girl might be ready for marriage, while a 14-year old might not.

2- The person (male and female) is not "tifl" (child). Again, this is more of a mental condition and it too varies from person to person.

3- The females have become "FATAYA" (young ladies or young females or young teenage females, or young women). So a female who is still a child and not a fatah (singlular of fataya) is not permitted to get married.

4- The males have reached the age of "hulum". Hulum means had an ejaculation of semen either while awake or during sleep. Boys before this stage are also not permitted to get married, in Islam.

Well, I have a challenge for Osama and other Muslims who claim that they want to defend Muhammad, since I don't believe they're really willing to defend him. Here's the question for them, and I hope they will respond clearly and honestly.

QUESTION FOR MUSLIM MEN: SUPPOSE YOU LIVED IN A COUNTRY WITH SHARIA-COMPLIANT MARRIAGE LAWS. FURTHER, IF YOU'RE ALREADY MARRIED, PRETEND FOR A MOMENT THAT YOU'RE NOT. IF YOU WERE SEEKING A MARRIAGE PARTNER, AND A SUITABLE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE PARENTS OF A NINE-YEAR-OLD GIRL COULD BE MADE, AND THE GIRL WAS INTELLIGENT AND ABLE TO DO HOUSEHOLD CHORES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MARRY HER AND HAVE SEX WITH HER?

There's the challenge. Now let's see who's really willing to stand up for Muhammad.

Muhammad and Aisha

A Muslim caller argues that when a girl gets her first period, God has given a sign that it's okay to have sex with her. Sam and I respond.

Do We Have Evidence for the Historical Jesus?

Rifqa Bary--Live Blogging of Today's Hearing

*****UPDATE***** In an interesting turn of events, it seems that the Barys are in the country illegally, and that they will have to be deported once the documentation is provided in court. Rifqa will most likely be able to apply for asylum. Read about Mr. Bary's illegal status here.

2:00pm - People are arriving for hearing for teenage runaway who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled her Ohio home for the safety of some Orlando church leaders. Today, the judge here and one in Ohio will hold a conference call to discuss how to proceed. Rifa Bary wants to stay in Florida, fearing for her personal safety. Her parents deny her claims that she will be the victim of an honor killing for leaving her family's faith. They say he is welcome to practice the religion of her choosing under their roof.

2:38pm - Overflow courtroom is almost full of Rifqa's supporters. Some are wearing t-shirts bearing Bible scripture. A small group held a short prayer circle in the lobby beforehand. Attorneys are not yet seated. Hearing will a few minutes late, it appears.

2:43pm - Rifqa and her attorney have arrived in court. She is wearing a black and white dress and appears calm. She is smiling and making small talk with Christa Bartholomew, her guardian at litem, or legal guardian assigned to this case. Her demeanor in the past has been much more subdued.

2:47 pm - judge learns mediation between Rifqa and her parents did not reach an agreement between parties.

2:50 pm - Jurisdiction is being talked about now. The courts in Orange County and Franklin County, Ohio are connected via a conference call.

2:55 pm - Ohio juvenile court judge Elizabeth Gill said she is willing to take on the case. Ohio DCF said Rifqa would be placed in a foster home, not returned to her parents.

3:00 pm - Rifq'a attorney John Stemberger is objecting to the case being turned over to Ohio. However, her guardian ad litem said Ohio is the proper place. She wants Rifqa's move back to Ohio to be "transitional," including a psychological screening. Bartholomew said "it's vital to protect this child from any additional emotional harm."

3:03 pm - Bartholomew said the parents should be held in contempt of court for not producing documents that show Rifqa is in the U.S. legally. The Bary family emigrated from Sri Lanka when she was much younger. "We don't need to move her just for the sake of moving her."

3:05 pm - Attorney Shayan Elahi said the parents have provided all the documents they have.

3:06 pm - Judge Daniel Dawson said he is concerned that months into this matter, this issue has not yet been resolved. "They have been trying to hold my clients in contempt for months, argued Elahi, calling the GAO 'abrasive.' " Dawson said he doesn't care about the motives of the GAO, but wants the papers turned over to the court.

3:09 pm - Judge Dawson plans to enforce his order for the passport and related papers, even if the case is moved to Ohio.

3:10 pm - "We still don't have a complete copy of (Rifqa's) passport," said Bartholomew. "I am very alarmed that it hasn' been provided," she added. She said she has learned there are more documents being withheld.

3:18 pm - Attorneys are talking about arrangements for a psychological evaluation and counseling. She is to see a local psychologist on Friday morning.

3:21 pm - Elahi said he suspects "a ploy" by Rifqa's legal representatives to delay her moving back home to Franklin County, Ohio.

3:22 pm - Stemberger suggested that Ohio court be told about the local psychologist, to ease their concerns that she is getting the best of care.

3:23 pm - Judge Dawson asked Ohio officials if they can schedule her evaluation soon after her arrival there. They say it could be done within 30 days. Her parents would also undergo evaluations.

3:25 pm - A report could be delivered within a couple of weeks, they said.

3:27 pm - Rifqa has been looking down for most of the hearing, writing into a tablet. She is paying attention to the comments being made in court.

3:29 pm - Dawson: The court is going to agree with Ohio that they have jurisdiction. Florida retains emergency jurisdiction.

3:35 pm - DCF said Rifqa will be escorted back to Ohio and turned over to Franklin County Children's Servies.

3:36 pm - Stemberger said it's important that her legal status be settled quickly. He said her parents have threatened to have her sent back to Sri Lanka "where mercy killings are practiced."

3:37 pm - Attorney Roger Weedem, who represents Rifqa's mother here, said Ohio is capable of handling immigration issues.

3:38 pm - Judge Dawson said he still concerned about this issue. "The court would feel lot better if these documents were here, before it gives up jurisdiction."

3:39 pm - Bartholomew said Rifqa Bary runs the risk of deportation, if takes public transportation anywhere in this country.

3:40 pm - Elahi is getting argumentative with the judge who insists on getting the immigration paperwork. "You and your client didn't supply it. I want it before this child leaves Florida," said Dawson.

3:41 pm - Elahi is accusing Rifqa's attorney is "religious predatory practices" and might take her someplace into hiding.

3:42 pm - Dawson said it is the parents' fault for not getting the immigration documentation. He doesn't plan to release her until he sees it.

3:46 pm - Ohio attorneys for Bary's parents are arguing for her quick transfer there. Ohio Judge Gill said she agreed with Judge Dawson that immigration papers need to be provided immediately, before the teen is sent back to Ohio.

3:54 pm - Bartholomew said she has received copies of only two pages of Rifqa's mother's passport. She wants the entire document.

3:55 pm - Dawson said he is troubled that the parents seem not to know what the court demands.

3:57 pm - Dawson set an administrative hearing on October 23rd. He wants to know by then that the immigration papers have been supplied, as he ordered in each of the three hearings he had held for the teenager's status. Source.

Osama Abdallah Declares: "I'll Be Enjoying My Virgins While You Christians Rot in Hell!"

The man who sees sex behind every verse in the Bible, the man who condemns Latinas for being too easy, the man who says he would skin a woman alive for sexual immorality--Yes, Osama Abdallah--boasts about the virgins he'll be having an orgy with in Paradise. Well, if sex is such an essential part of Islamic paradise, and if heaven is nothing more than an eternal orgy, why would Osama condemn people for getting a taste of heaven right here on earth? Here he goes:

And VJ, I'll take all of the virgins, dude. I'll enjoy 100% of the bliss of Heaven from all dimensions and all directions and all benefits, while you ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.

I am not ashamed of my beautiful Islam. On the contrary, I am very proud of It, and I thank Allah Almighty days and nights endlessly that He Created me a Muslim, from Muslim upbringing and parents and family and background, and not created me from infidels' background. I know that I would've eventually became a Muslim by Allah Almighty's Will, but still, being a Muslim 100% all of my life is a MEDAL OF HONOR FOR ME, AND IS VERY VERY PRECIOUS AND DEAR TO MY HEART.

So rot in Hell buddy. Keep mocking the Truth and follow the blind. You are another blind one. So I'll let the blind lead the blind.

Muslim Threatens Christians for Speaking about Muhammad

Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?David Wood vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi

Opening Statements


Rebuttals and Crossfire


Audience Questions and Conclusions

Is Jesus Eternal? A Muslim Sheikh Responds

David and Sam on TV again This Friday, Saturday, and Sunday!

It's that time again!

Sam and I will be on ABN again this weekend.

*****UPDATE***** The schedule's been changed. For our European friends who can't watch at the times below, ABN will be rebroadcasting the programs. We'll update you with the rebroadcast schedule.

*****SECOND UPDATE***** The Saturday evening schedule has been moved half an hour. I've corrected it below.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9TH
8:30 PM-10:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time)
11:30 PM-1:30 AM (EST)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10TH
9:30 PM-11:30 PM (EST)
12:00 PM-2:00 AM (EST)

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 11TH
9:00 PM-11:00 PM (EST)
11:30 PM-1:30 AM (EST)

To watch the programs, visit ABN's website and click the third box on the right for live-streaming. (Requires Windows Media Player or something similar.)

Acts 17 Radio Today at 4:00 P.M. (EST)

Friends,

Nabeel and I will be on the radio today at 4:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time). We will be discussing the Rifqa Bary case and apostasy in Islam. For those in the New York area (as well as New Jersey and Connecticut), tune in to WMCA 570AM. Those in other areas can listen to the half-hour program on the internet. Just go to WMCA's website, where you'll see a "Listen Live" box at the top. Since we're new to doing our own radio programs, please give us as much feedback as possible.

"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" Abdullah Andalusi and Yahya Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood

OPENING STATEMENTS


REBUTTALS


CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS

Did Moses Predict the Coming of Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18?

David on "Iron Sharpens Iron" Last Week: MP3 Available

Here's an MP3 of a program I did last week on Chris Arnzen's "Iron Sharpens Iron." We talked about Islam in the news.

Are There Other Gospels That Refer to Muhammad?

Was Muhammad the Comforter of John 14:16-17?

****NOTE**** There's an error in my comments in the video. I said that we have close to 6000 manuscripts of the Gospel of John. It's actually close to 6000 manuscripts of the New Testament. But since many New Testament manuscripts are fragmentary, the number of manuscripts of John's Gospel will be fewer. Just wanted to point that out.

Does John 1:19-21 Refer to Muhammad?