(1) A young girl dies as a result of her husband (following the example of Muhammad) having sex with her at nine years old.
(2) I point out the fact that a young girl dies as a result of her husband (following the example of Muhammad) having sex with her at nine years old.
While instances of (1) never seem to bother Yahya, instances of (2) send him into a rage. When young Muslim girls die from sex-related issues, or women are beaten or raped by Muslim men, or people are killed by Muslims in a terror attack, the most we’ll hear from Yahya is an empty “How sad.” But when we point out that young girls are dying from sex-related issues, or that women are being beaten and raped by Muslims, or that Muslims are killing people, watch out! Yahya suddenly goes on a rampage.
We’ve seen this over and over again, but it’s important to continue drawing attention to the fact that Muslims like Yahya have their priorities all wrong. Consider two recent examples.
After Yahya’s fellow Muslims threatened to murder Trey Parker and Matt Stone, I posted the cartoons that led to the threats. Now see if you can predict what’s more offensive to Yahya: (a) threatening to murder people for drawing a cartoon, or (b) posting the cartoons that Muslims are willing to kill for.
You guessed it. Yahya doesn’t seem to care much that his fellow Muslims are ready to slaughter Islam’s critics the way Theo Van Gogh was slaughtered. What bothers him is that I showed the world what his fellow Muslims will kill for. And here it is again:
Interestingly, Yahya attempts to rebuke me by saying that it is morally wrong to do something that will offend Muslims. This brings us to a major problem with Muslims like Yahya—hypocrisy. What did Muhammad do while he was in Mecca? Interestingly, the Muslim sources tell us that Muhammad was free to preach openly, until he started denouncing the religious beliefs of the pagans (in an extremely offensive manner). The pagans even promised that Muhammad would be free to preach if he simply stopped denouncing their religious beliefs:
The Messenger of God proclaimed God’s message openly and declared Islam publicly to his tribesmen. When he did so, they did not withdraw from him or reject him in any way, as far as I had heard, until he spoke of their gods and denounced them. When he did this, they took exception to it and united in opposition and hostility to him . . . (al-Tabari, Volume VI, p. 93)
They sent one of their number, whose name was al-Muttalib, to Abu Talib to ask permission for them to enter. He said, "Here are the shaykhs and nobles of your tribe asking permission to visit you." He told him to ask them to come in, and when they had done so they said, "Abu Talib, you are our elder and our chief, so give us justice against your nephew and order him to desist from reviling our gods, and we will leave him to his god." (al-Tabari, Volume VI, pp. 94-95)
Muhammad refused, of course, and instead promised to slaughter the unbelievers:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Muhammad b. Ishaq- Yahya b. ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr- his father ‘Urwah-‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As: I said to him, "What was the worst attack you saw by Quraysh upon the Messenger of God when they openly showed their enmity to him?" He replied, "I was with them when their nobles assembled one day in the Hijr and discussed the Messenger of God. They said, ‘We have never seen the like of what we have endured from this man. He has derided our traditional values, abused our forefathers, reviled our religion, caused division among us, and insulted our gods. We have endured a great deal from him,’ or words to that effect. While they were saying this, the Messenger of God suddenly appeared and walked up and kissed the Black Stone. Then he passed by them while performing the circumambulation, and as he did so they made some slanderous remarks about him. I could see from the Messenger of God’s face that he had heard them, but he went on. When he passed the second time they made similar remarks, and I could see from his face that he had heard them, but again he went on. Then he passed them the third time, and they made similar remarks; but this time he stopped and said, ‘Hear, men of Quraysh. By Him in whose hand Muhammad’s soul rests, I have brought you slaughter.’ They were gripped by what he said, and it was as though every man of them had a bird perched on his head; even those of them who had been urging the severest measures against him previously spoke in conciliatory ways to him, using the politest expressions they could think of, and said, ‘Depart in true guidance, Abu al-Qasim; by God you were never ignorant.’ (al-Tabari, Volume VI, pp. 101-102)
Let’s review. Yahya Snow tells us that it’s morally wrong for me to post a cartoon showing people why Muslims are issuing death threats. He says it’s wrong because it’s offensive to people. But why was it okay for Muhammad to offend the pagans? Why was it okay for Muhammad to deride their traditional values, abuse their forefathers, revile their religion, cause division among them, and insult their gods?
The answer, if Yahya is honest, is simply this: Muslims don’t need to practice what they preach. It’s okay for Muslims to condemn people for what they themselves do. This is the foundation of Muslim morality. Thus it was unacceptable (death penalty in fact) for the pagans to keep the Muslims from taking the pilgrimage to Mecca, but it was perfectly acceptable for the Muslims to keep the pagans from taking the pilgrimage to Mecca. It was unacceptable for unbelievers to write poetry against Muslims (death penalty in fact), but okay for Muslims to write poetry against the unbelievers. It was okay for Muhammad to condemn the beliefs of others, but totally unacceptable for anyone to criticize Islam (death penalty again).
But this is absurd to anyone who isn’t a Muslim, which is why Yahya’s cries of “You’ve offended me” are so hollow. How offensive was it when Muhammad conquered Mecca and smashed the idols of the pagans? It was extremely offensive to the pagans. And yet it’s okay to smash the idols of the pagans, but not to draw a cartoon of the idol of the Muslims (i.e. Muhammad).
We’re therefore forced to regard all of Yahya’s complaints as sheer hypocrisy. (If only he would spend this much time complaining about the atrocities committed in the name of his religion!)
We see something quite similar in Yahya’s reaction to the short film that got Theo Van Gogh brutally murdered. “Submission” was a little over ten minutes long, and was meant to draw attention to the plight of women in Islam (who are beaten, raped, murdered, etc.). See if you can guess which of the following will offend Yahya Snow most:
(1) Theo Van Gogh makes a video of abused Muslim women asking Allah why his teachings lead to so much suffering.
(2) Muslim women have been beaten, raped, and killed since Muhammad delivered the Qur’an and are still being beaten, raped and killed.
(3) Muslims brutally slaughtered Theo Van Gogh for criticizing Islam.
You guessed it. The video drawing attention to the suffering of women is the only thing that seems to upset Yahya. He just doesn't want anyone to see what Theo Van Gogh was slaughtered for (or what Islam does to women).
His complaint this time is that the video is pornographic. Let’s look at a few dictionary definitions of pornography to see why Yahya’s complaint is disturbing.
Pornography—Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
Pornography—material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement.
Pornography—obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
Now watch the following video and see if it fits the above definitions:
Artistic merit? Absolutely. It’s the most artistically brilliant and moving critique of Islam I’ve ever seen.
Is there anything here meant to cause sexual arousal? Nothing whatsoever. Indeed, until Yahya started complaining about pornography, I never thought the women in the video were naked. There’s nothing in these videos that one couldn’t see on a sandy beach in the summer (no nipples or other images). I always thought the women were wearing some kind of skin-colored body suits. (And we shouldn't ignore the fact that YouTube doesn't regard anything in the video as pornographic.)
But all of this is beside the point. To think of these videos as sexually arousing would be absolutely monstrous. Who gets sexually aroused by watching women talk about being beaten and raped? This is why I’m highly disturbed that Yahya regards this video as sexually arousing. My repugnance at Yahya’s mentality just went through the roof.
Like it or not, there’s a massive difference between a porn film and, say, the Venus de Milo. The former is meant to arouse sexual desire, while the latter is art. To claim that the Venus de Milo is pornographic would display a perversion, not in the sculpture, but in the mind of the critic. Similarly, to say that a brilliant and moving video addressing fourteen centuries of abuse is pornographic displays a perversion, not in the film, but in the mind of Yahya Snow.
But regardless of whether we find “Submission” tasteful or offensive, wouldn’t every non-Muslim on this site agree that it’s far more offensive to beat and rape women (and little girls) than to make a movie drawing attention to the plight of women in Islam? Wouldn’t we agree that Yahya should be far more offended at Surah 4:34 and 65:4 than he is at a video? Should Yahya spend so much time trying to convince us that Islam is against violence and abuse, and so little time doing something about the violence and abuse committed every day in the name of Islam? Shouldn’t Muslims have more of a problem with slaughter in the name of their religion than with pointing out Islamic atrocities?
Welcome to Islam, my friends. It's about more than violence and oppression. It's also about inconsistency and hypocrisy. There are Muslims reading this post at this very moment, thinking about how they would love to saw my head off because I’ve said these things. And if Muslims one day manage to saw my head off, you can rest assured that people like Yahya will be fine with the killing, but outraged if you point out the killing.
If Yahya's inconsistency, hypocrisy, and callous attitude towards the victims of Islam aren't offensive, I don't know what is.
Brilliant indeed!!!! Only further shows that Shamoun was right about this guy.
An absolute misrepresentation of my blog posting
Clearly my rebuke left a bee in David's bonnet.
David attempting a deflection is not the way...you should have just admitted your unChristian behaviour and left aside any dents to your ego after I ( a mere Muslim) rebuked you
Note...Christians even agree with me on this.
I'm not sure if I will dignify this with a response.
Wow, this guy is really delusional isn't he? Yahya, do you honestly think that you are rebutting anybody with your blog articles or comments? If the answer is yes then this illustrates why Christians need to be praying that God will send his Holy Spirit to help these blind Muslims like Yahya to see the light of Jesus Christ.
Yahya Snow said...
"Note...Christians even agree with me on this."
Where when, and who?
I just read Ben's comment. It's funny I trying to type "delusional" but I kept spelling it so bad that spell check wouldn't catch it. LOL
I was going to say "Man this guy is really delusional. Can he name one Christian who agreed with him on this blog lol.
Trying to put myself in the shoes of the ordinary Muslim in the West,I think there is a tendency not to comment or even condemn atrocities by Muslims due to a sense of shame at the deeds.I believe our friend Yahya is against those atrocities but perhaps thinks commenting on them would do no good.
Just a thought.But my view is a HISTORICAL figure of the past(general,poet,etc) can be satirized.
I guess even insulted,though it is rare.
My intervention in the forum that is in Spain has been good.Unfortunately there are only 2 Christians who write,I and a Catholic who is from Mexico.And he lacks knowledge of the best arguments for Jesus because all the info is in English.
I have given them ALOT of info.Now I am debating about the Muslims in Spain from 711-1492(was their presence positive?I argue it was mixed,that THEY have it idealized,that it's not accurate to say it is a "MODEL" for today).
i agree completely with everything david has written. everything is so well said and true. pity some ppl remain 2 stay blind till the rest of their lives eventhough the truth is always around them. keep the good work.
Learn to sing a new tune. The one you are singing on your blog and in the comments here is a hypocritical and tiresome song (and even disturbing in light of some of the valid points raised by David).
Yahya said: "David attempting a deflection is not the way..."
Wow, are you capable of typing without being a hypocrite? "Deflection" is the perfect characterization of your behavior Yahya. Do you show outrage that Muslims are ready to kill people over cartoons (yet again)? No. You are "outraged" by David's posting of said cartoons and his so-called "un-Christian behavior". Yahya, before anyone takes your critique of what is and isn't Christian behavior seriously, you first have to prove that you understand Christian theology and that you are capable of understanding even the fundamentals of the Bible. You have failed miserably on both accounts, and this is why none of us do anything but laugh at your impotent rebuke of David.
I've seen that the video of Muhammad from South Park when off...
so here it IS: http://www.220.ro/funny/South-Park-Mohammed/Evsnx0nULd/.
David Wood said: "To claim that the Venus de Milo is pornographic would display a perversion, not in the sculpture, but in the mind of the critic"
-so true, and what a good parallel to what Yahya sees in Submission.
I have been doing some research of Biblical figures in the Qur'an like Eve, the first Muslim woman according to Muslims, which might have something to do with the abovementioned views. In Tarikh al Tabari 1:109 Allah condemns Eve along with all female biology and renders Islamic women ritually impure because, in crude terms, women bleed. Eves physicality becomes a description of Divine punishment from Allah who diminishes Eves mental capacity and character making her 'foolish' or 'stupid' (safiha), even though Allah said "I had originally created her with prudence (or intelligence, halima)". Eve is also condemned by God to "bleed once every month - as she caused this tree to bleed" The weight and burden of the Fall of Man is shifted to Eve.
It almost seems as though Muhammad's followers tried to repair the Fall account in the Hadith from the Qur'anic one (which particularly focuses on Adam, or Adam and Eve as a single unit), and made it more like the Genesis account in the OT (but screwed up bad). There was not a lot of information pertaining to women (Eve) ni the early days of Islam from my understanding (except for 'men excel women' in Sura 4:34), what had been was scattered and few, but here we see the gradual development in the introduction of a womans place in Islamic society. Maybe this can be related to Muhammad's more peaceful preaching in Mecca among the pagans, and his later deceptive teachings and war preaching in Medina only after gaining numbers. As Islam switched hands and expanded after Muhammad's death, gaining power, woman's place in society had to be chiseled out and developed in a new religious context in a male dominated culture. I guess what im saying is that when Muhammad's earliest followers dug deep into Islam they ended up finding that Allah is not merciful after all, especially not to a women.
Then Tabari records "If it were not for the misfortune which befell Eve, women on earth would not menstruate and they would be good natured and would have easy pregnancies and births" - This is punishment of all women by Allah because of their feminine biological experiences (menstruation) and implied innate character flaws (not being good natured, hard pregnancy), all because Eve was a woman and this somehow corrupted Adam. It is interesting to see how the early Muslims viewed women, the OT, and the Fall account.
[Al Tabarii, Tarikh al Rusul wa'l Muluk, volume 1, M. J. DeGoeje, et al ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1879-1901)]
Also, there is a strange relation between all of mankind vut especially women (Eve) and Abd al Harith, who by default would be none other than satan. Al Tirmidhi in Sunan book 4:332 chronicles a tradition: "When Eve became pregnant, Iblis appeard to her and He [Satan] said, "Name him Abd al Harith" Then She named him Abd al Harith and he lived. And that was because of the inspiration of Satan and his command."
Besides the fact this passage demonizes all motherhood and presents it as corrupt, how could Adam and Eve's first Muslim child, named after satan in agreement with the mother, be related to Muhammad and all of humanity? The first human offspring is satans child? Muhammad is a descendant of satan?
[Muhammad ibn Isa al Tirmidhi, Sunan al Tirmidhi, Abd al Rahman Abbas ed., vol. 1, (Cairo: 1967)]
David good on you,
Wow, David that was brilliant ! bravo :)
And as The Fat Man pointed out ---"Note, Christians even agree with me on this "
ok, --- indeed Where, When , and WHO ??
This Christian most certainly doesn't
Post a Comment