Sam and David on "Jesus or Muhammad" This Friday, Saturday, and Sunday!

Sam and I will be on ABN this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, from 8:00 P.M. until 10:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) each night. We'll be on with Pastor Joseph on Friday, Jay Smith on Saturday, and Anthony Rogers on Sunday. Those who don't get ABN via satellite can watch live here.

Gaddafi's Forces Using Rape as a Weapon of War

LIBYA--Children as young as eight are being raped in front of their families by Gaddafi's forces in Libya, according to a leading charity.

Aid workers described horrific stories of widespread sexual abuse, including one incident in which a group of girls was abducted and held hostage for four days.

When they were finally released, they were too traumatised to speak.

Other children have described being forced to watch as their fathers were murdered and their mothers raped.

They told Save The Children that they themselves were then brually beaten before being released. (Read more.)

Christian Evangelist Abraham Abera Beaten to Death by Muslims in Ethiopia

If a Palestinian had been beaten to death by an Israeli soldier, Muslims would be rioting in the streets around the world right now. But since it's a Christian evangelist being killed by Muslims, don't expect much of a reaction from anyone.

Washington--International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that on April 21 four Muslims beat an evangelist to death and assaulted his pregnant wife in Worabe, Ethiopia, an area that is 97% Muslim.

The Muslims lured Evangelist Abraham Abera from Kale Hiwot Church, his home and place of ministry, at 9:30 p.m. They told him that his friend was sick and needed his immediate attention. Abraham left with the men; they turned on him and began to beat him with rods. The minister's wife, Birtukan, saw the men attack her husband and ran to intervene, but the Muslims beat her as well.

Abraham died on the spot and his wife, who sustained a severe head injury, was left unconscious in the street. She was found and taken to a hospital in Butajira, where she regained consciousness on April 22nd and was able to recount the details of the attack. Birtukan spoke with an ICC source and said that she knew two of the attackers. She said that as the Muslims were beating her and her husband, they told them, "You (Christians) are growing in number in our area. You are spreading your message (the gospel). We will destroy you."

Though Birtukan did suffer injuries to her mid-section, her unborn baby did fortunately survive the attack.

The attackers still remain at large. A Christian leader in the area told ICC that the men may not be arrested because the local officials are also Muslims. "Christians in Worabe and its surrounding areas are persecuted at the hands of Muslim radicals, and the local government officials, who are Muslims, don't protect Christians. We urge the higher government authorities [state and federal officials] to intervene and protect us," said the Christian leader.

"The brutal killing of Evangelist Abraham and the beating of his wife, Birtukan, is deeply troubling. We urge the federal government authorities to investigate this latest attack as well as reports of persecution against Christians in the Silte zone," said Jonathan Racho, ICC's Regional Manager for Africa. (Source)

Christian Arrested in California for Reading the Bible in Public

I'd like to go to the same spot and read from the Qur'an. Let's see what happens.

A Muslim Dawagandist Refutes the Qur'an With the Help of Josephus - Part II

It looks like my earlier blog post found here did not go over well with my Muslim friend. It also appears my plea fell on deaf ears and he has decided not to take off that old silk hat of his, even though it doesn’t fit and the magic has long since run out.

One of his complaints is that I focused on only one of the issues dealt with in his blog post, but it was to his own benefit that I only narrowed in on one of his errors rather than all of them. As I will show, his complaint here is like that of a convicted murderer objecting to the fact that he was not also brought up on rape charges for raping a woman on the same day he committed first degree murder.

Before coming to the other issue he is anxious to be refuted on, I need to return to the original problem that I addressed in my post, a problem he desperately tried to disentangle himself from but only managed to get himself more tied up.

Here is the problem in a nutshell:

1) The Testimonium Flavianum (hereafter, TF) is not considered by most scholars to be a pure, unadulterated statement of Josephus free of any mishandling by some Christian(s), whether this is attributable to an accidental scribal gloss or is due to some nefarious reason(s). The basis on which most scholars suspect a Christian interpolation into TF is because it calls Jesus "the Messiah", which Josephus would not have done since he was a non-Christian Jew.

2) Surah 4:157 in the Qur’an attributes a statement to those first century Jews who rejected Jesus that would likewise have to be rejected as either an interpolation into the Qur’an or a bald-faced error on the part of the original author(s), if the above reasoning is granted as valid. That is, since first century Jews would not have boasted that they killed Isa “the Messiah” and “the messenger of God”, for the very obvious reason that they desired his death precisely because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, this verse as it exists in the present day Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an must be rejected as an error.

In response to this, he replied as follows:

“I suppose the thought of context left his [Anthony Rogers – AR] mind as he appealed to Quran 4:157. Did he ever stop to think the Jews could have appended those titles to Jesus out of sarcasm as a form of mockery or the titles are due to paraphrasing from the Author (God)? The sarcasm point is similar to the passage where Jesus was allegedly mocked in Mark 15:16-20 with the title of “king of the Jews”.”

Since he never tells us himself just what the context offers us to help clarify the meaning of this verse, it is hard to know what it was that supposedly left my mind as I read the verse. And since he says the Jews “could have” given those titles to Jesus out of sarcasm, it is also apparent that the context did not clearly settle the matter for him either. In fact, he even goes on to give a second possibility in the same sentence when he says the author of this verse could have been “paraphrasing” the Jews. So which is it? Does the context clearly point to the fact that the Jews were being sarcastic? Or does it clearly point to the fact that Allah was simply paraphrasing the Jews? Apparently the necessary context to make it clear that either of these meanings was intended left the mind of the author who penned them, leaving future generations of readers in the precarious situation of trying to make heads or tails of the verse and no other option but flipping a coin to settle the controversy.

In support of the idea that the Jews could have engaged in sarcasm, though the passage does not clearly say this and the context does not indicate it either, he points to the fact that “Jesus was allegedly mocked in Mark 15:16-20 with the title ‘king of the Jews’”. The mistakes involved in drawing this comparison to Mark’s gospel are stark. In the first place, Mark 15:20 explicitly says that the Jews said this in mockery: “And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak…” On the other hand, neither the immediate passage nor the broader context of Surah 4:157 say anything of the sort. And that’s why not all Muslims hold this interpretation. In fact, they have many more interpretations on offer than the two dogmatically asserted by My Muslim friend. Given that the text of the Bible is sufficiently detailed and clear on this point while the text of the Qur’an is not, we also have to smart from the fact that this Muslim would say the Jews “allegedly” mocked Jesus. The only thing that we may fairly say is being alleged here is that the Quranic statement compares to the Biblical one when it clearly does not, at least as far as the issue of clarity goes. Moreover, some translations of the Qur’an even suggest the very opposite of this view, such as Yusuf Ali’s translation which parenthetically adds the words “in boast”, which shows that on his reading of the verse the Jews were not mocking but actually boasting when they said this. Couldn’t the “allegedly” omniscient author of the Qur’an see that the way he communicated this event might suggest to people that the Jews were not being sarcastic as we see in the case of Yusuf Ali? Or couldn’t the allegedly omniscient author of what boasts to be the world’s most eloquent book have spoken more clearly and explicitly said “mockery” so that those who follow him would not be left to cast about for explanations and fall all over each other in the process?

It is just because the verse does not clearly indicate that the Jews were saying this in mockery that my Muslim friend turns around and says Allah could have simply been paraphrasing what the Jews said. On top of the fact that this exposes the error of pretending that this passage somehow clearly shows in context that the Jews were mocking, the idea that Allah was paraphrasing the Jews is also problematic. The very idea of a paraphrase is to communicate the gist of something in roughly approximate language. But how is putting a statement in the mouths of Jews that they wouldn’t have spoken approximate what they could have said? To suggest such a thing is laughable, but perhaps my Muslim friend is just engaging in a little mockery and is pulling my chain when he pretends that he is actually offering well-thought out, problem free explanations of what is going on in Surah 4:157. In fact, I wonder if he would mind if I paraphrase him in a way that inaccurately expresses his actual position in the way he says his god did in S. 4:157.

Unmindful of my aim in the blog post – which was to show that the very reasoning this Muslim appealed to in order to argue that Christians added things to TF, and that this is a good illustration of one of the many problems with Surah 4:157 – this Muslim objects to the fact that I did not deal with his point that an interpolation among the handlers of Josephus writings at one point shows that some scribe was dishonest. He says:

“Even if Jews sincerely called Jesus by such titles [in 4:157] it would have NO bearing upon the blog post as it simply repeats one of the reasons as to why the critics doubt the passage in Josephus was interpolated whilst travelling in a culture of dishonesty amongst the scribes. I guess this was lost on Mr Rogers.”

It might have no bearing on the point of his post, but why should that matter to me? So I had a different point in mind when I used something this Muslim said in the process of arguing against the authenticity of TF. Big deal. How is this helpful to him and other Muslims? He was arguing against the authenticity of Josephus, and I was using his argument to refute the Qur’an. This means at best his argument shows a problem in the transmission of Josephus, while my argument on the other hand points up a problem in the Qur’an. As I see it, this is a great trade off. I was minded to freely give him the point of his post, which was that Jospehus was partially corrupted for the reasons he appealed to, and to be consistent that means he has to give me the error or corruption of the Qur’an on the basis of the same reasons. In other words, I freely granted that he has a pair of two’s; now consistency demands that he realize I have a royal flush.

Although it wasn’t my intention to address his concern that Josephus was mishandled, since he is hopping up and down about it I would simply point out that scholars, even though we have an incredibly impoverished manuscript tradition for Josephus as compared to the Bible, still believe they can, with some degree of confidence, by comparing and collating manuscripts (such as Greek, Slavonic, and Arabic texts of Josephus) and through the application of critical thinking and a sound methodology, determine what Josephus would have said. In fact, such reconstructions have been offered by a number of scholars, including one of the scholars this Muslim favors and often quotes in other contexts: Geza Vermes.

As for the charge of dishonesty on the part of later scribes, at best this Muslim has only shown that someone along the way was dishonest, not that there was “a culture of dishonesty”. But of course he didn’t even prove or even so much as argue that someone was dishonest; he merely asserted this, nothing more. The fact of the matter is there may be another explanation for how the change occurred, such as a marginal comment that was accidentally copied by a later scribe as if it were part of the original text, a mistake that often occurred in hand written manuscripts.

This brings us, finally, to the other issue that this Muslim complained about that I did not address, i.e. the fact that Josephus did not report anything about the slaughter of the innocents. According to him, this is supposed to show that the slaughter of the innocents reported in Matthew’s account of the Gospel did not actually take place.

“-Anthony, you failed to adequately cover the main point to the post; why did Josephus fail to mention Herod’s massacre of young boys despite chronicling Herod’s brutal history.”

Several things may be said in response to this argument from silence:

At no point in Josephus’ writings does he say anywhere that he aims to be exhaustive. In fact, by comparing Antiquities of the Jews to Jewish War, we see that Josephus mentions things in the one work that he doesn’t mention in the other. It is evident from this that Josephus was not aiming to be exhaustive in either one.

This is not only true in a general sense; it is particularly true when it comes to Josephus account of Herod. In one place in Antiquities, Josephus says:

"And since Herod had now the government of all Judea put into his hands, he promoted such of the private men in the city as had been of his party, but never left off avenging and punishing every day those that had chosen to be of the party of his enemies." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 15:1)

But Josephus does not tell us each and every act of punishment that Herod inflicted on his enemies every day. This is a clear indication that Josephus was not trying to be exhaustive even when it comes to the history of Herod.

Worse still, there are events from the time period that Josephus does not record that we know about from other sources. For example, we know from other historical sources that Herod persecuted and repressed the wilderness Essenes, but Josephus makes no mention of this.

When we put all of this together, what we have is this. In the first place, Josephus did not aim to be exhaustive in everything that he recounted. Second, we know that Josephus did not aim at or achieve an exhaustive account of the person and acts of Herod. Third, we have a specific example of something Herod did that Josephus did not recount. Given all of this, can anyone seriously argue that an event, such as the slaughter of the innocents reported in Matthew, did not take place just because Josephus does not report it? Obviously not.

Many more things could be mentioned, but this post has already become quite long and the above is more than adequate to remind my Muslim friend why the apologetic task is best left to others. In trying to argue for Islam and against Christianity, he has not given us any cogent reason to reject or doubt the latter, and in the process has given us good reason to reject the Qur’anic claim to be clear, exhaustively detailed, and without error. Worst of all, we learn all of this by a comparison of his own reasoning with the very verse that accuses those who believe in the crucifixion of Christ of having no certain knowledge about what actually happened and of being full of conjecture and doubt. If my Muslim interlocutor has shown anything, he has shown that he can’t defend against the error of S. 4:157 without showing in the process that he does not really know what is going on at this point in the passage and therefore has to engage in conjecture, and these very conjectures themselves are open to many serious objections, including the objection that S. 4:157 is supposed to dispel all such conjecture on his part.

Although it won’t be a continuation of this article, many more errors and/or ambiguities in Surah 4:157 will be mentioned in future posts. Of course if my Muslim friend wants to further entangle himself and try to respond to the above, then I will happily continue this discussion as well.

Some arguments in this vein were already made in a previous post, others were not repeated. Hence, the reader is encouraged to read the earlier article, found here: The Qur’an: A Book Full of Conjecture and Doubt

See also a post done by David a long time ago on this verse: The Irony of the Qur’an–Surah 4:157-158

Sam Shamoun has also written on this general subject:

The Qur’an, Bible Preservation and the Crufixion

And the latter article in particular from Sam contains a section towards the end addressing the claim that the Jews were mocking or being sarcastic in S. 4:157.

Did Jesus Really Obey Satan? Exposing Another Muslim Fraud and Lie

Passover for Sudan's Freed Slaves

A Muslim Dawagandist Refutes the Qur'an With the Help of Josephus

Although I don’t believe there is anything close to a good case to be made for Islam or against Christianity, every once in a while I like to remind a certain Muslim dawagandist just how much efforts to defend Islam and refute Christianity are better left by him to others. The longer he persists in trying to be an apologist for Islam the less he is doing anything that could be considered good even if one adopts the misguided perspective of his false prophet which he delivered in the name of a false god. The reason for this is simple: more often than not, when this dawagandist departs from his preferred approach of attacking and slandering Christians and actually tries to mount an argument, he ends up shooting the very platform on which he is standing.

Not content with previous efforts at undermining his credibility as an apologist, he decided to take one of his occasional romps out of his comfort zone of gossip and slander into the area of historical apologetics. His recent appearance in this arena involves an attack on “Trinitarian Christians” for corrupting one of the important evidences for the historical existence of Jesus. According to him, “Trinitarian Christians” are guilty of corrupting the account of the first century Jewish historian Josephus, who was, among other things, an eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

In various places in his writings Josephus makes mention of both John the Baptist and James the Lord’s half-brother. Josephus’ remarks about John the Baptist are not questioned by historical scholars, and his remarks about James are questioned by very few. However, and this is where our Muslim friend renders a disservice both to himself and his prophet, he brings up the famous Testimonium Flavianum, a portion of Josephus that, admittedly, has been debated by scholars. The passage in Josephus reads as follows:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading me among us having accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him. And to the present the tribe of Christians, named after this person, has not disappeared." (Ant. 18.3.3)

Scholars have taken three basic approaches to this portion of Josephus: 1) the passage is entirely spurious; 2) the passage is entirely authentic; and 3) the passage is partly authentic and partly inauthentic.

By far and away, historical scholars take the third option. A few of the reasons why most scholars do not reject the entirety of the passage as inauthentic or entirely a product of Christian hands can be given here.

In the first place, a number of the statements that appear in the Testimonium Flavianum are not characteristically Christian forms of expression or ways of speaking about Jesus. For example, although Christians believe that Jesus was/is, as He Himself said, “Greater than Solomon”, calling him “a wise man” is not a way that the early Christians did or would be expected to refer to Jesus, their Lord (and ours). Early Christians also did not refer to themselves as “the tribe of Christians”, a fact that once again points away from the idea that a Christian is responsible for at least this portion of the passage. A second observation that inclines scholars away from understanding the entire passage to be the product of Christian tampering comes from a later reference to Jesus in Josephus, a reference scholars do not contest. The way the later passage in question is worded presupposes an earlier mention of Jesus by Josephus, and the Testimonium is the only candidate for such an earlier reference.

More could be said in favor of the fact that the passage cannot be written off in its entirety as being from Josephus, but the scholarly work on this is so well known, widely spread, and easily accessible that this would be an unnecessary waste of time, especially in the present context and the real reason I have for bringing all of this up. The actual reason for bringing this up derives from one of the MAIN reasons that scholars have for saying that the passage contains at least some Christian interpolations. Just how my Muslim friend missed the significance of this and walked right into an incredibly embarrassing situation is truly beyond me, though I guess I shouldn’t have put it past him. Here is the list of reasons as it was provided by this Muslim:

"The principle arguments against the genuineness of the account in the Jewish Antiqiuities are as follows:

(i) The Jewish Josephus could not have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah]

(ii) While the bishop and historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 340 CE) mentions the controversial passage, the Greek theologian Origen (ca. 185-254 CE) had expressly stated that Josephus did not believe Isa [Jesus] to be al-Masih; and finally

(iii) The suspicious passage breaks continuity of Josephus’ description of a series of riots (Feldman, 1965:49)" (Emphasis original)

To this I want to give as loud and emphatic an “AMEN” as I possibly can: Josephus, as scholars agree, in so far as he was a Jew and not a Christian, “could NOT have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah].”

And that, noble readers, is why we not only must understand that the text of Josephus at this point cannot be entirely the product of his hand; it is also one of the MANY reasons why we must reject the Qur’an as the Word of God, for it contains just such an obvious and glaring error – or should I say “interpolation”? – as even our Muslim friend admits in the above case. It does this when it attributes the following statement to those first century Jews who rejected Jesus: “Surely we have killed THE MESSIAH [al-Masih], Isa the Son of Marium, THE MESSENGER of Allah” (S. 4:157). The simple fact of the matter is, unbelieving first century Jews “could not have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah],” and therefore the so-called “perfectly preserved Qur’an” has perfectly preserved for us one of the many errors of the Allah of the Qur’an and his only messenger – Muhammad.

In light of this I must once again appeal to this Muslim to consider hanging up his apologetic hat. "If the hat doesn't fit, you ought to quit."

For more on this, see here:

The Qur’an: A Book Full of Conjecture and Doubt

Muslims Bomb Iraqi Church

While Muslims in the West complain about Terry Jones burning a book, Christians in the East face real persecution.

BAGHDAD—An Iraqi police official says seven people have been wounded by a roadside bomb outside the entrance of a Baghdad church.

The official says the blast took place Sunday just yards (meters) from the Sacred Heart Church in Baghdad's Karradah neighborhood. Shrapnel from the bomb struck the outside of the building.

The officer said no parishioners were inside and services had not been held in the building.

Four policemen and three civilian bystanders were wounded.

Iraqi security forces are on high alert for any violence targeting Iraq's beleaguered Christian community this Easter. Iraqi Christians have faced a recent wave of violence, including an attack last year against a Baghdad church that killed 68 people.

The officer declined to be identified because he was not authorized to brief the media. (Source)

German Woman Speaks Out at Islamist Rally

Muslim Praising God for the Arrest of Terry Jones

Why do authorities in Dearborn continue to carry out penalties that happen to line up perfectly with Sharia? Could it be . . . the will of the people?



There are two additional things you might want to note from this video. First, the massive field was the site of Jones' planned protest. Doesn't it look more than sufficient for a protest? Second, people were free to gather in protest, even though Jones was not. Were they arrested? Of course not.

Welcome to Dearborn.

I feel a video coming on . . .

Mayor John O'Reilly Gets Taken to First Amendment School

Let It Rip: Was Free Speech Squashed?: MyFoxDETROIT.com

Jury Rules against Terry Jones as Dearborn Once again Shows Contempt for the U.S. Constitution

Yesterday, Judge Mark Somers (the same judge whose blunder got Negeen convicted) put a price tag on Freedom of Speech. Pastor Terry Jones would have to post a "peace bond" ($100,000, according to Jones) in order to hold his planned protest against Sharia in Dearborn. When Jones refused to pay the bond, Judge Somers declared that Jones would have to face a jury. The jury decided that a protest outside America's largest mosque would be likely to "breach the peace." Thus, Jones is not allowed to hold a protest on public property outside the Islamic Center of North America.

Jones has repeatedly stated that he will protest there regardless of the court's decision. Hence, if police make the mistake of enforcing the court's ruling, Pastor Jones and Pastor Wayne Sapp will be the fifth and sixth persons arrested in Dearborn and sent to jail for exercising their Constitutionally protected free speech rights in Dearborn.

I feel a video coming on . . .

***UPDATE*** Just when you thought Dearborn couldn't make a bigger mistake, Judge Somers ordered Jones and Sapp to be taken to jail (since they each refused to post a $1 bond).

***UPDATE*** Jones and Sapp each posted their $1 bond and were released.

Andrew Klavan: How to Behave During an Islamic Massacre

Hassan Adawe Adan Murdered by Muslims for Converting to Christianity

According to Muhammad, anyone who leaves Islam must be put to death.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah’s Messenger said, “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

Fortunately, most Muslims live far better than their religion calls them to live. Some Muslims, however, still take Muhammad's commands seriously.

NAIROBI, Kenya, April 20 (CDN) — Two Muslim extremists in Somalia on Monday (April 18) murdered a member of a secret Christian community in Lower Shabele region as part of a campaign to rid the country of Christianity, sources said.

An area source told Compass two al Shabaab militants shot 21-year-old Hassan Adawe Adan in Shalambod town after entering his house at 7:30 p.m.

“Two al Shabaab members dragged him out of his house, and after 10 minutes they fired several shots on him,” said an area source who requested anonymity. “He then died immediately.”

The militants then shouted “Allahu Akbar [God is greater]” before fleeing, he said.

Adan, single and living with his Muslim family, was said to have converted to Christianity several months ago. Area Christians said they suspected someone had informed the Islamic militants of his conversion. One source said that a relative who belonged to al Shabaab had told Adan’s mother that he suspected her son was a Christian.

“This incident is making other converts live in extreme fear, as the militants always keep an open eye to anyone professing the Christian faith,” the source said. (Read more.)

If there's anyone out there who still denies Muhammad's clear teaching about apostates, check this out:

Thirteen Muslims Acquitted of Publicly Gang-Raping Mukhtaran Mai in Pakistan

But don't say anything, since it's wrong to judge another person's culture. It would be both racist and bigoted to object to such practices.

MULTAN, Pakistan, April 21 (Reuters) - A Pakistani victim of a village council-sanctioned gang-rape, who became a symbol of the country's oppressed women, said on Thursday her life was in danger after the Supreme Court acquitted 13 men accused of the crime.

Mukhtaran Mai was attacked on the orders of a village council in 2002 as a punishment because her brother -- who was 12 at the time -- was judged to have offended the honour of a powerful clan by allegedly having an affair with one of its women.

Mai was an illiterate villager at the time but she defied taboos and shot to global fame by speaking out about her ordeal and taking her attackers to court.

Mai had accused 14 men of being involved in raping her and in 2002, a court sentenced six of them to death while acquitting the others citing a lack of evidence.

But in an appeal, the Lahore High Court not only upheld the eight acquittals but also overturned five of the six convictions. The death penalty for the sixth man, Abdul Khaliq, was commuted to life in prison.

Mai appealed to the Supreme Court in 2005 but it rejected her appeal on Thursday, said Gohar Ali Shah, a lawyer for Mai.

"I'm disappointed. Why was I made to wait for five years if this decision was to be given?" a sobbing Mai told Reuters by telephone from her village in the eastern province of Punjab shortly after the court announced the decision.

"The accused can kill me and my family when they return home," Mai said.

Her courage in defying centuries-old rural customs of repressing women won her human rights awards and made her a role model for many women in Pakistan.

She is running a school for girls in her village with donations from the government and supporters at home and abroad.

Mai said she would neither flee her village nor the country.

"Life and death are in the hands of Allah ... I will not shut my school and other projects," she said.

The group Human Rights Watch expressed dismay at the court decision, saying the attack on Mai was a "crime that took place in full public view and the perpetrators were publicly identified".

"Today's verdict by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the Mukhtaran Mai case reflects poorly on the Supreme Court," said Ali Dayan Hasan of the U.S.-based rights group. (Read more.)

Here's a video of Mai from a few years ago:

Donald Trump on the "Muslim Problem" and the "Negative Vibe" of the Qur'an

Wow. By stating the obvious, Donald Trump just set himself apart from every other presidential candidate.



I have two things to add. First, Trump correctly notes that many people believe that the Qur'an has a lot to say about love. Here are some of the Qur'an's extensive verses on love:

Qur’an 2:190—Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.
Qur’an 2:276—Allah does not love any ungrateful sinner.
Qur’an 3:32—Allah does not love the unbelievers.
Qur’an 3:57—Allah does not love the unjust.
Qur’an 4:36—Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful.
Qur’an 7:31—[Allah] does not love the extravagant.
Qur’an 8:58—Allah does not love the treacherous.
Qur’an 28:77—Allah does not love the mischief-makers.
Qur’an 57:23—Allah does not love any arrogant boaster.

Second, Trump wonders whether the violence in Islam comes from Muslim sources or from somewhere else. Here are some Muslim sources to clarify.

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Qur’an 48:29—Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves.

Qur’an 98:6—Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islam, the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad) 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.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah’s Messenger and said, “Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Sahih Muslim 33—It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, “A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah’s cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . “By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah’s Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, “A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah’s Cause?” The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e., Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah’s Cause.”

Sunan An-Nasa’i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: “Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy.”

Muslim Professor Liaquat Ali Khan Calls on Muslims to Petition U.S. Government to Outlaw Qur'an Burning

We're not in Kansas anymore. Oh wait, yes we are. Liaquat Ali Khan is a law professor at Washburn University in Kansas. He claims that the U.S. should make laws against Qur'an burning, since burning Islam's holy book leads to violence. (Note: This is called the "Murderer's Veto." Whoever is willing to murder gets to control the behavior of others.)

Hmmm. It almost seems like radical Muslims (who kill in the name of Islam) and moderate Muslims (who point to the killings and demand changes) are after the same thing--Islamic supremacy. But it would be racist and bigoted of me to say this, so I won't point out the obvious.

KANSAS--In the language of law, Qur'an burning would be an expressive conduct. The First Amendment is generous in protecting oral and written word. It is less so with respect to expressive conduct. The First Amendment shelters expressive conduct if it does not threaten to disturb the peace. The United States Supreme Court declined to outlaw the burning of an American flag because, "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur."

The flag precedent does not apply because Qur'an burning is an expressive conduct that incites actual violence. So far Qur'an burning has produced instantaneous violence outside the United States. Given the presence of a growing population of American Muslims, Qur'an burning threatens domestic peace. Media and blog invectives may have forced Justice Stephen Breyer to retract his otherwise sound intuition that the First Amendment would not protect Qur'an burning.

Invoking their constitutional right, American Muslims should petition the United States Congress for a redress of grievances. They must demand constitutionally sound legislation that outlaws desecrations of the Qur'an. For Congress, such legislation will demonstrate to American Muslims that the United States is prepared to break away from the medieval custom of assaulting the dignity of the Qur'an. It will also send a powerful message to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and the entire Muslim world, that the U.S. is neither Islamophobic, nor anti-Islamic, a move that can undermine terrorist threats to homeland security.

To their credit, Western European nations have adopted anti-hate statutes, which would proscribe burning of the Qur'an. A few days ago, the British government arrested a Welsh politician who allegedly burned a copy of the Qur'an. The British government has also banned Pastor Jones from entering the United Kingdom. (Read more.)

Senator Lindsey Graham would agree completely:

The Islamic Objective in Great Britain

He said it, not me. If I said it, I would be labeled a racist, Islamophobic, bigoted hate-monger. So I'll let him say it.

Muslims Burn Homosexuals Alive

While the world condemns Terry Jones for burning a book, we remain silent when Muslims burn human beings.

***WARNING*** Graphic content.

(I'm assuming it will be taken off YouTube in a few hours.)



And when YouTube takes it down, here's another host:



There is disagreement about the correct Muslim method of executing homosexuals (stoning, etc.), but the penalty for the "sin of Lot's people (homosexuality) is clear:

Sunan Abu Dawud 4447—Ibn Abbas reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Here's a Muslim scholar claiming that, since death is too good for homosexuals, they should be publicly tortured:



Another Muslim scholar tells a homosexual man that, according to Islam, he should be killed:



This Muslim scholar discusses the views of Muhammad's companions on the penalty for homosexuality:



This Muslim scholar takes a while to answer the question, but ultimately agrees that the penalty for homosexuality is death:

American Imam Explains Wife Beating

The Qur'an advises Muslims to beat their wives in certain situations.

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Here's how one Muslim apologist explains the passage:

British Veteran Andrew Ryan Sentenced to 70 Days in Jail for Burning Qur'an

A little Sharia never hurt anyone.

Great Britain--A former soldier has been sentenced to 70 days in prison for setting fire to a copy of Muslim holy book the Koran in the centre of Carlisle.

Andrew Ryan had previously admitted religiously aggravated harassment and theft of a Koran from a library.

The 32-year-old, of Summerhill, said he had been "shocked" watching a Muslim burning a poppy on Remembrance Day.

Shoppers and schoolchildren witnessed the burning, outside the old Town Hall, on 19 January.

Sitting at Carlisle Magistrates' Court, District Judge Gerald Chalk described it as a case of "theatrical bigotry".

He said: "It was pre-planned by you as you stole the book deliberately.

"You went out to cause maximum publicity and to cause distress."

Ryan struggled with security guards in court after the sentence was passed.

While being handcuffed he shouted: "What about my country? What about burning poppies?"

About 10 people were in court to support Ryan, and as they left the court they shouted "do you call this justice?".

After sentencing, Insp Paul Marshall, of Cumbria Police, said: "This incident was highly unusual for Cumbria as we have such low levels of hate crime in the county." (Source)

Christian Emad Mikhail Selected as Governor of Egyptian Province, Muslims Protest and Threaten to Kill Him

The Qur'an clearly commands Muslims to fight and subjugate non-Muslims.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Imagine the horror when a Christian is selected to govern in a Muslim-majority country.

CAIRO (Reuters) - Muslims in southern Egypt protested for a third day on Sunday over the appointment of a Christian governor, saying his predecessor, also a Christian, had failed to solve their problems.

Thousands rallied outside the governor's office in Qena and prevented employees from entering, blocked highways leading to the town and sat on a railway line into the province demanding that the appointment of Emad Mikhail be reversed.

Egypt's interim military rulers, who took control when President Hosni Mubarak was ousted in a popular uprising, selected Mikhail last week as one of several new appointments to replace officials associated with his autocratic regime.

The protesters say Mikhail's predecessor, Magdy Ayoub, failed to stem sectarian violence and address poverty and unemployment, which grew during his tenure. Witnesses say some Coptic Christians joined the protest as well.

"The experience of a Coptic governor has failed. There is no objection to his Coptic identity but the previous governor left a negative impression of Christian officials," Youssef Ragab, a witness in Qena, told Reuters by telephone.

Residents say Ayoub was too weak in enforcing laws to quell rising tension between Muslims and Christians, fearing his background might imply sectarian allegiance.

"The protesters don't want any governor to favour one religious group over the other," Ragab said.

Other protesters said they objected to Qena being a province always governed by Christians, who make up about 10 percent of Egypt's 80 million people. Its Christian population lives mainly in the south.

"They are acting as though Qena province has been allocated to Christian officials. If a Christian was to be appointed to another province, there is nothing wrong with that," said Ayman Hassan Maged, a lawyer and resident.

The protest took a more aggressive turn as some radical Salafi Islamists in the crowd demanded a Muslim official, saying "we want it Islamic." Some even threatened to kill Mikhail if he came to his office. (Read more.)

Christian Incumbent Goodluck Jonathan Elected Nigerian President, Muslims Riot and Burn Churches

The Qur'an clearly commands Muslims to fight and subjugate non-Muslims.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Imagine the horror when a Muslim candidate loses an election to a Christian.

NIGERIA—Deadly riots erupted across Nigeria's north on Monday as results from presidential elections showed incumbent Goodluck Jonathan had won the contest that reflected deep regional tensions.

Returns from all 36 states and the capital showed Jonathan with more than 22 million votes compared to some 12 million for Buhari.

The rioting began after allegations of rigging in Saturday's vote as results showed sharp divisions between the mainly Muslim north and predominantly Christian south of Africa's most populous nation.

Jonathan condemned the violence in a statement.

"I have received with great sadness the news of sporadic unrest in some parts of the country which are not unconnected with last Saturday's elections," he said, appealing to those involved "to stop this unnecessary and avoidable conduct".

Residents reported that a home belonging to Vice President Namadi Sambo was among those set alight in the northern city of Zaria and a mob sought to burn a Christian woman alive in another area.

Churches were also burnt and a prison was raided, with a number of inmates escaping, residents said. Mobs roamed in a number of states, armed with sticks and burning bonfires in the streets.

An unspecified number of people were killed in Kano when homes and shops were attacked, in Gombe when a home was set ablaze and in Kaduna, where mobs had stopped people on the highway.

A spokesman for the national emergency management agency, Yushau Shuaib, confirmed deaths occurred in those incidents, but declined to provide figures out of fears of reprisals. (Read more.)