Biblical Typology and Prophecies About Muhammad: A Reply to Yahya Snow

Previously, I published an article on this site about the evidential value of Messianic prophecy in making the case for Christianity. Shortly thereafter, Yahya Snow, a notorious Muslim polemicist, published some comments regarding my article on the blog of Paul Williams, Blogging Theology. Normally, it is courtesy to link to an article that you are responding to. Yahya, however, doesn't do this.

Muslims are desperate to find prophecies about Muhammad in the Bible. They are desperate because the Qur'an, in Surah 7:157 and 61:6, tells us that Christians and Jews can read of Muhammad in the Torah and Injil. Therefore, if Muhammad cannot be found in the Torah and Injil, Islam is false. Muslims have had 14 centuries since then. They have searched high and low to find cases of Muhammad in the Bible. To-date, all of the argued cases they have come up with have turned out to be completely empty -- in most cases to the point of being laughable. For further in-depth discussion of this topic, here are two of my appearances on ABN where I discuss this topic -- here and here.

Over at Blogging Theology, Yahya Snow couldn't contain his excitement as he read my article. If Christians could use a typological hermeneutic in interpreting Messianic prophecy, why couldn't Muslim do the same thing for Muhammad?

A Response to Yahya Snow On My Debate With Yusuf Ismail

Yahya Snow, a notorious Muslim YouTube polemicist, based in London, whom I have had dealings with in the past, has written a review of my recent debate with South African Muslim apologist Yusuf Ismail on Unbelievable?. The debate topic was "Did Jesus' earliest followers believe He was God?" Yahya begins his review by noting,

"I did not appreciate Jonathan McLatchie’s approach in this debate – it smacked of insincerity. I don’t believe that is an attitude anybody who is putting information out into the public domain should espouse. Very disappointing."

Snow goes on,

"Jonathan McLatchie begins by outlining the significance of this discussion as well stating his aims in the discussion. McLatchie at 9.45 injects wild speculation into his theology by claiming it is essential for the Christian worldview that Jesus was divine. Where’s his proof here? This seems to be old speculation that other evangelical Trinitarian Christians are putting forward, others such as James White."

Yes, you read that right. According to Snow, my contention that the deity of Christ is an essential Christian doctrine is "wild speculation." Actually, this contention can be supported from the words of Jesus Himself. In John 8:24, Jesus makes an allusion to Isaiah 43:10, saying, "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins."

Does Paul Affirm Christ's Deity?

Yahya goes on,

"Jonathan McLatchie’s intention is to attempt to demonstrate the disciples believed in the divinity of Jesus in an effort to refute Islam. McLatchie wants to show all the earliest sources affirm the deity of Jesus and/or the original followers affirmed this to try and “win the debate”. Jonathan firstly contends Paul clearly affirmed the deity of Jesus in Phil 2:5-11 and 1 Cor 8:6 Hold on did he say 1 Cor 8:6? If he did then we are all left scratching our heads as this is a text Unitarian Christians use to show the Father is the only true God (not Jesus!). What is Jonathan McLatchie thinking here? Here’s the text: yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things cameand for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."

Yes, 1 Corinthians 8:6 affirms the deity of Christ. Paul takes the Jewish shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One") and expands on it ("yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist"). Paul thus identifies Jesus Christ as the Lord of the shema and even identifies him as being co-creator with the Father. What is said of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6 ("through whom are all things and through whom we exist") cannot be said of any mere creature.

Later in his review, Yahya asks whether the Carmen Christi (Philippians 2:5-11) supports the idea of the deity of Jesus. He writes,

"This is not really related to the debate subject either but it may be interesting for folks to delve deeper into this. A lot of evangelicals use this argument. However, does the Carmen Christie really teach the deity of Jesus in the manner in which Trinitarians would have us believe? I don’t think so. For those who are interested in researching this area, look into the idea of exaltation theology and subordinationism too. Again, are we seeing evangelicals thrusting their later church traditions on to the text?"

Actually, it is very related to the debate subject, since the Carmen Christi, quoted by Paul in Philippians 2:5-11, is believed by many scholars to be one of our very earliest sources concerning the beliefs of the early church. Given that our debate was on whether the earliest followers of Jesus affirmed His deity, how can Yahya Snow fail to see the relevance of this?

In verse 6 of Philippians 2, we read that Christ ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (hos en morphē Theou hyparchōn) -- literally, "in the form of God subsisting..." In verse 7, we read, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων (alla heuton ekenōsen morphēn doulou labōn en homoiōmati anthrōpōn) -- literally, "but himself emptied, the form of a servant having taken in the likeness of men." Notice that Paul uses the Greek word μορφῇ (morphē) in both clauses. He thus puts the two in the same category. Just as he was made in the form of a bondservant, so in the same sense he was in the form of God Himself. Verses 10 and 11 also allude to Isaiah 45:23, in which we read, "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance." The whole context of the Carmen Christi, moreover, is an instruction to emulate the humility of Christ. But one is hardly commended for humility for the act of not seeking to achieve equality with God. Rather, it makes sense only if one is exercising humility by laying aside the divine privilege that was rightfully His.

Does Jesus' Claim to be the Son of Man Affirm His Deity? Catching Yahya Snow in a Contradiction

I recently had some back and forth (see here and here) with Muslim YouTube polemicist Yahya Snow regarding Jesus' self-identification by the title "Son of Man", a clear reference back to Daniel 7:13-14 in which Daniel sees a vision of a divine-human figure. Yahya Snow insists that the Son of Man is a personification of the nation of Israel, and cannot possibly refer to a person who is God. As I mentioned previously, the Greek Septuagint translation tells us that the Son of Man receives latreuo from all nations. Latreuo is the very highest form of worship and religious service. In Yahya Snow's recent video on whether Jesus allowed His disciples to worship Him (which I addressed in my previous article here), he shows a clip of Ali Ataie talking about the two Greek words that are used for worship -- proskuneo and latreuo. Ataie concedes that latreuo is a form of worship reserved for God alone. Yet here is the problem: Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, who, according to the Greek Septuagint translation of Daniel 7:14, receives latreuo. But Yahya insists that Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man is not a claim to deity. Yahya Snow thus appears to have been caught in a contradiction.

Did Jesus Allow His Disciples to Worship Him? A Reply to Zakir Hussein, Ali Ataie, and Yahya Snow

Yahya Snow, a notorious YouTube Muslim polemicist, has been putting out some commentary on my recent debate with Muslim Sheikh Inamullah Mumtaz. In a recent video, he took some issue with my comments regarding Thomas worshiping Jesus as Lord and God in John 20:28. The Greek reads, ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου, which, being translated, literally means "Answered Thomas and said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me!"

Watching the clip where I raised this text, I noticed that I had mistakenly said that the text of John 20 uses the Greek verb proskuneo (meaning, in a religious context, "to worship"). I was relying on my memory and I misremembered the text at this point. John 20 does not in fact use the word proskuneo. Proskuneo is used in relation to Jesus on various other occasions, and the disciples are in fact described as giving Jesus proskuneo in Luke 24. What makes this especially important is that we are told that, following Jesus' ascension into heaven, the disciples, "having worshiped" (Greek, proskynēsantes) him, "returned to Jerusalem with great joy" (Luke 24:52). Yahya Snow's video plays a clip in which Ali Ataie makes the assertion that proskuneo only implies that the disciples were kissing Jesus' hand out of reverence. While proskuneo can have those connotations, in a religious context, the verb always means to worship. The religious context of Luke 24:52 is very clear, since Jesus had already ascended into heaven. This, thus, refutes the supposition that they were merely kissing Jesus' hand out of reverence.

Yahya Snow also plays a clip of Muslim debater Zakir Hussein (arguably the best Muslim debater in the UK). He argues that the account in John 20 is in fact a fictional account invented wholesale by John (or whoever he takes the author of the fourth gospel to be). His reasoning is that Luke 24:36-49 reports Jesus as having appeared to "the eleven" who were all present together at the time (see verse 33). This, argues Hussein, doesn't allow for Thomas' absence from the group at the time of the appearance, nor a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present. Furthermore, John tells us that the appearance to the eleven with Thomas present occurred eight days later, whereas Luke seems to indicate that the ascension took place immediately after the appearance to the eleven. Luke 24:50-51 tell us,

"Then he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven."

One possible reply is that "the eleven" is being used as a figure of speech, much as "the twelve" is used in that way by Paul (see 1 Corinthians 15:5). I do not, however, find this approach to be the most convincing, since it seems to be rather ad hoc, and there is no additional evidence that Luke used the term "the eleven" in this way. It also would not explain the apparent immediacy of Jesus' ascension following the appearance to the eleven, allowing apparently no time for a subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present.

The refutation to Zakir Hussein's objection can be found in the book of Acts (penned by the same author, Luke). Here is the prologue to the book of Acts:

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God."

So, Luke understands Jesus to have been with the disciples for forty days following his resurrection. Luke's language implies that he appeared to them multiple times over the course of forty days. Thus, the only conclusion that one can draw is that Luke, in chapter 24, telescopes the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus, collapsing them all into one. This, thus, resolves the apparent discrepancy between Luke and John.

Is the Son of Man the Nation of Israel? A Reply to Yahya Snow

Muslim polemicist Yahya Snow has published a response to my recent article regarding the Son of Man (apparently without linking to the article he is addressing). It is curious that Yahya Snow exemplifies the very same attitude that I often observe among the "new atheist" community that I engage with. He can't imagine that someone who is as informed and rational as him could possibly disagree reasonably. Thus, those with whom he disagrees must have been subject to indoctrination, or some other impediment to clear thinking. As I noted previously, he had earlier stated that the reason for my "superficial and misleading spin" on Daniel 7:13-14 was because I "may well have been indoctrinated...in [my] youth." This time, he has another reason why I don't see things the way he does: Pride. He writes,

"I’d like you to make a concerted and conscious effort to put pride and any other hindrance to objective analysis to one side and reflect on the points in the video as well as the supplementary material in this blog post." 

Further,

Being led by emotion and pride in order to defend an idea (Trinity) which is described as idolatry by Jewish rabbis is really playing with fire -- regardless of who you are [...] Please look into it sans pride and the emotional baggage surrounding it.

To Yahya, it is inconceivable that someone could have taken the time to watch his video and read his blog post and yet fail to be persuaded by his argumentation. When I recently suggested a debate on the identity of the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament, Yahya was sure that this must be the reason I don't see things the way he does. He said,

"I'd rather encourage you to reflect further on this issue as opposed to jumping into a debate to defend your personal view on the angel of the Lord. Acting upon the impulse of pride can blind one from seeing the the [sic] truth."

 Now, let's turn to the issue at hand.

Muslim Blogger Yahya Snow Praises Iran for Misogyny and Abuse of Women

In 2009, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development released its Report on Gender Equality and Social Institutions. The organization rated countries around the world based on their level of discrimination against women. When it comes to treatment of women, the Islamic Republic of Iran ranked among the most oppressive countries in the world.

Not surprisingly, Islamic extremist blogger Yahya Snow praises Iran for its treatment of women, going so far as to say that America needs to be more like Iran.

Notice that the excerpt Yahya posts doesn't simply promote modesty, but the government enforcement of veils for women. In other words, women who don't comply with an Islamic dress code are to be punished by the government, according to Yahya.

And Yahya says that America needs to be more like Iran.

Yahya Snow Defends Boko Haram Kidnappers, Rapists, and Terrorists

Muslim apologist Yahya Snow uses an interesting strategy to defend and support his fellow Muslim extremists. When there's a terrorist attack, Yahya will say that Islam doesn't allow such attacks, but he'll also (a) suggest that reports of the attack may be the result of Islamophobic propaganda, (b) explain that the attack, even if genuine, is actually a response to Western aggression, and (c) warn critics of Islam to keep our mouths shut about the attack.

This is the general strategy. Watch how it works when Yahya addresses the kidnapping, torture, rape, and forced conversion of nearly three hundred Nigerian schoolgirls by Boko Haram.

Did you catch that? Islam condemns forced conversion (which it doesn't), but (a) the reports may be false propaganda against Muslims, (b) Boko Haram is only doing it to defend their Muslim brothers, and (c) critics of Islam need to keep their mouths shut about this.

Apparently, Yahya knows that it simply won't be effective to come right out and defend Boko Haram's actions, so he prefers a strategy taken straight from the likes of CAIR: defend terrorists indirectly by blaming infidels and demonizing critics.

Interestingly, by saying that Islam doesn't allow forced conversions, Yahya has condemned Muhammad and his companions. Consider the following description of Muhammad's mission by Muhammad's closest companion, Abu Bakr (who was warning apostates that they would be killed if they refused to return to Islam):

Al-Tabari, Volume 10, p. 55—Abu Bakr to the Apostates: . . . “Verily God, may He be exalted, sent Muhammad with His truth to His creation as a bearer of good tidings and as a warner and as one calling [others] to God, with His permission, and as a light-bringing lamp, so that he might warn [all] who live, and so that the saying against the unbelievers might be fulfilled. So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.”

Notice the last part. Muhammad "struck whoever turned his back" to Allah until they came to Islam "willingly or grudgingly." That is, people were going to come to Islam whether they wanted to or not.

This is what Yahya assures us has nothing to do with Islam. Does Yahya expect us to believe he's a higher authority on Islam than Muhammad and Abu Bakr?

Taqiyya, anyone?

Good News for Sad Muslims

If we pointed out the following disturbing fact and our lack of surprise in light of what Muhammad practiced and preached we would be called Islamaphobes. It would be said that we are seizing on the plight of certain people in order to prosecute our irrational agenda against Islam, the very religion professed by those who are at the bottom of this atrocity, not to mention so many other atrocities. Thankfully, even people like Yahya Snow, in spite of their best efforts to gloss over such things, are often constrained to admit certain obvious and telling facts, even if they are unsettling:

I know that it is very likely only for propaganda purposes that Yahya bemoans the above fact, i.e. in order to make Islam palatable for people in the West, but even if we make the very charitable assumption that Yahya's lamentation is sincere, I wonder if he also sincerely believes, or if he sincerely and seriously wants us to believe, that his private beliefs and practices are a more authoritative example of what Islam is in both theory and practice than what is taught and followed by EVERY MUSLIM COUNTRY on the planet? In addition, even if we assume that Islam does not teach Muslims to commit such heinous acts, and also does not teach Muslim countries to sit idly by when such things are happening, how do Muslims like Yahya account for the pervasiveness and the gravity of such evil, both on the part of the Muslim perpetrators and Muslim spectators, in light of Islam's denial of the fall and human depravity? As well, if Islam actually teaches Muslims to behave in an altogether different fashion than what we see being carried out and tacitly approved by proactive Muslims and inactive Muslim countries, what accounts for the fact that they evidence no power or ability to live up to the requirements of Islam?

The answer to the latter question is that Islam has no Gospel; no good news for guilt-ridden, corrupt human beings. Even if Islam actually taught all the lofty ideals, virtues, and laws that Yahya, contrary to Boko Haram and all Muslim countries, pretends it does, Islam can do nothing to actually remove the guilt, cleanse the consciences, or transform the hearts of those who subscribe to it. Islam is a dead letter, a death-dealing letter. Islam of course makes all sorts of claims regarding forgiveness and salvation, but it has nothing on which to really ground such claims. It claims that those who come to Allah and Muhammad for forgiveness will subsequently find their law easy, but as Paul Williams pointed out after leaving Islam: "The Quran claims that following the path of Islam is easy (see Surat al-Baqara 185 and passim) and I find myself forced to respectfully disagree with the Quran." (emphasis original)

As Williams' words soberingly admit, Islam does not truly grant assurance to its followers or the power to live out the implications of that forgiveness.

How different and how sweet are the words of the apostle:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son inthe likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. (Romans 8:1-11)

Yahya Snow Caught Asleep At the Wheel

The following is one of Yahya Snow’s favorite questions:

Yahya is so impressed with his question that he decided to turn it into at least three different posts over the course of three months, swapping out the title each time to contribute to the illusion of being more productive than he is and to help mask the still rather obvious truth that the vast majority of his posts are not about substantive issues but consist rather of personal attacks, one of the lowest of which is when he took a stab at Sam Shamoun on the occasion of his beloved Mother’s passing into glory. Here are the screenshots* of the two additional times Yahya posted the same thing under different titles:

In other words, most of Yahya’s attacks on the Trinity, the Lord Jesus, the prophetic and apostolic writings, etc., are just Yahya duplicating one or another of the handful of articles he has written on these topics, sprinkled in between thinly veiled defenses of terrorism, as well as outright defenses of pedophilia, tongue sucking, timeless erections awarded to Jihadis, and, most frequently, the scores and scores of new slander pieces he cranks out faster than Muhammad picked up other people’s wives and possessions. All of this seems calculated to hide the fact that Yahya doesn’t really have anything of consequence to say on the apologetic front; instead, he mostly spends his time reminding us that he doesn’t like certain people, as if that is a newsflash to those of us who know that Muslims routinely curse Jews and Christians in their hearts and prayers (q.v. Surah al-Fatiha, v. 7, and the commentary of Ibn Kathir).

Now, in answer to Yahya’s question, it would be easy to quote believing textual scholars like Bruce Metzger, Gordon Fee and Daniel Wallace. Upon doing so I am only too sure that Yahya would, as usual, shift his ground and reject anything they have to say, even though he asked them for an answer, pretending all the while that the question was sincere on his part. In fact, I don’t have to guess that this is what Yahya would do since this is what he has done, deleting my responses to hide the answer from his readership, which is admittedly few in number.

Rather than repeat what I pointed out to Yahya before from Wallace and others, and rather than post this on his blog where I am sure it will not scrabble its way to the top of the muddy pond in order to see the light of day – at least not as long as Yahya has his finger on the “abrogate” button, something Allah and Muhammad also found quite useful when writing and redacting the “eternal” Qur’an, not to mention Uthman who committed additional unwanted Quranic material to the flames – I decided I would post the answer here on AM, and this time from Bart Ehrman, who so happens to be Yahya’s favorite unbelieving textual scholar.

In a revised presentation of his review and evaluation of the ECM project, originally presented to the NTC section of the Society of Biblical Literature back in 1997, Ehrman said the following:

19. In my opinion, we need to reconceptualize the task of NT textual criticism. If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we're not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are. Barring some fantastic manuscript discoveries (like the autographs) or some earth-shattering alterations in text-critical method, the basic physiognomy of our texts is NEVER going to change. I've been arguing this for several years now, sometimes to the discomfort of my colleagues in the field. But I have to say that this edition does nothing to disconfirm my view. There are masses of data now available for reconstructing the text of James--several times more witnesses than available, for example, over a century ago to Westcott and Hort. How much has this mass of evidence affected the textual complexion of the book of James? ALMOST NONE AT ALL. The two changes of the NA²⁷ text in this new attempt are completely minor. And I should point out, in both cases the text now reads exactly as it did in Westcott and Hort's edition of 1881.

20. A lot of textual scholars have fretted about this as if it were a problem. The concern seems to be that if we can't radically modify the original text, we have no business engaging in this line of work. This view strikes me personally as completely bogus. We can still make small adjustments in the text in places--change the position of an adverb here, add an article there--we can still dispute the well known textual problems on which we're never going to be agreed, piling up the evidence as we will. But the reality is that we are unlikely to discover radically new problems or devise radically new solutions; at this stage, our work on the original amounts to LITTLE MORE THAN TINKERING. There's something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that A MAJOR TASK HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, but there it is. (Bart Ehrman, “Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation,” pts. 19-20; italics original, uppercase and bold emphasis mine.)

The above is no different than what I told Yahya can be found in the teachings of Dr. Wallace and others, and it isn’t even something Ehrman recently changed his mind on after further study as is the case on other topics related to the fact that the original disciples and followers of Jesus were convinced by the resurrection and ascension that Jesus is God. As Ehrman says in the above citation, which itself was made as far back as 1997, “I’ve been arguing this for several years now…” Perhaps if Yahya didn’t spend so much time making excuses for terrorists and trying to attack the reputations of others he wouldn’t be so far behind the scholarly curve or get caught so often asleep at the wheel of his studies.

*The reason for posting screenshots rather than links is in part due to the fact that a number of Islamic apologists often take down or alter their original posts after exposure. After this maneuver they promptly deny that taqiyya has any place in Islam, and then they say that their critics have just made up the story because they are Islamophobes. 

Yahya Snow Advocates Sucking on the Tongues of Children

Say what you want about Yahya Snow's juvenile arguments and childish personal attacks, but at least he tries to respond to some of the odd things we read about Muhammad. Take, for instance, Muhammad's practice of sucking on the tongues of children, and letting them suck on his tongue:

Al-Adab al-Mufrad al-Bukhari 1183—It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "I never saw al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'" (Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari, Number 1183)

Musnad Ahmad 16245—[Mua’wiya said]: I saw the prophet sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).

Most Muslims simply avoid passages like these, hoping that, by ignoring them, the world will never ask questions about them. But not Yahya Snow! Yahya takes the issue head-on:

So far, Yahya has given us two reasons for letting children suck on someone's tongue: (1) to quench their thirst, and (2) to calm them down.

Yahya claims that if Jesus or Mother Theresa had allowed children to suck on their tongues, they would have been praised for it. I have to disagree with Yahya here: it would still be weird no matter who was doing it. But let's grant that it's a "genuine act of devotion" to let children suck on your tongue in order to quench their thirst. Notice that, in the passage from Musnad Ahmad above, Muhammad was sucking on the tongue of al-Hasan. But this would mean that Muhammad wasn't giving al-Hasan his saliva in the arid environment; instead, he was taking saliva from al-Hasan. How is it a "genuine act of devotion" to steal a child's moisture in an arid environment?

But Yahya isn't finished.

Instead of giving these hungry children milk or water, Muhammad would spit in their mouths enough to satisfy them. Here Yahya may appeal to the arid environment, but this is the prophet who used to shoot water from his fingers, isn't it? Muhammad is passing out female captives left and right, and dividing the spoils of war with his followers. But all the children get is a mouthful of spit?

Yahya also mentions the "blessings within the Prophet's saliva." Apparently, Muhammad's spit was miraculously sweet, with the power to sweeten an entire well:

Unfortunately, Yahya has ignored the most important reason Muhammad sucked on children's tongues. As we read in Musnad Ahmad, "no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)." In other words, Muhammad had the power to guarantee salvation simply by sucking on a child's tongue. Since Muhammad himself didn't know whether he was going to heaven or to hell, this is an amazing power. Even if a child grows up to be an axe-murderer, the child will not go to hell, so long as Muhammad sucked on his tongue or lips. (Note: According to Muhammad, drinking his urine would also guarantee salvation, not to mention forever cure a person of stomach ailments.)

So we have five reasons for sucking on the tongues of children, letting them suck on someone's tongue, and spitting in their mouths:

(1) Taking saliva from them, or giving them saliva.
(2) Calming them down.
(3) Satisfying them until evening.
(4) Sharing miraculous sweetness.
(5) Ensuring their salvation.

Obviously, reasons (4) and (5) only apply to Muhammad (since he's the only one with the miraculously sweet spit and the power to grant salvation by sucking on a child's tongue), but the other three are still in play. Reasons (1) and (3), Yahya may suggest, only apply in arid environments, but they would clearly apply even today. So if you see a thirsty or hungry child and you live in a dry area, Yahya's advice is to let the child suck on your tongue and to spit in his mouth. Of course, if you're thirsty, and you want some of the child's saliva, Yahya must also think that you should suck on the child's tongue.

Interestingly, reason (2) would be relevant in any environment. According to Yahya, if you want to calm down a child, simply stick your tongue in his mouth and let him use it as a pacifier.

I suppose we should all thank Yahya for showing us how rational and practical Islam is. Shame on us for thinking that Muhammad's teachings are absurd and that his earliest followers were shockingly gullible for mindlessly accepting everything he said.

Welcome to Islam, my friends, and to the wild and wonderful world of Islamic apologetics!

Yahya Snow Defends Al Qaeda Terrorist Attacks

Politicians and the media constantly assure us that the unimaginably vast majority of Muslims condemn terrorist attacks, and that the only reason we even notice the tiny minority of Muslim extremists is that we're a bunch of Islamophobic bigots who want to make Islam look bad.

But reality doesn't always line up with the fantasies of politicians and the media. For instance, a 2003 poll showed that 59% of Indonesian Muslims and 56% of Jordanian Muslims supported Osama bin Laden. (Note: those are majorities, not tiny minorities). Fortunately, support for bin Laden fell considerably after 2003, but his popularity could never be deemed insignificant by any standard.

Even more disturbing, support for terrorist attacks is surprisingly high even in Western nations. In a 2006 poll, for example, nearly a quarter of British Muslims said that the 7/7 subway attacks were justified because of Britain's involvement in the "War on Terror." (Note: the 7/7 attacks targeted civilians.)

Some Muslim apologists also suggest that terrorist attacks against Western targets are justified in Islam. Yahya Snow went so far as to defend Al Qaeda's promise to "eliminate the cross" by destroying America, "the bearer of the cross." Yahya justifies the attacks by saying exactly what Al Qaeda says, namely, that terrorist attacks against America are America's fault for interfering in Muslim countries.

Here's Yahya's response:

Of course, as far as Islamic doctrine is concerned, Yahya is entirely correct. Qur'an 5:33 commands Muslims to kill or crucify those who "make mischief" in Muslim lands (with lesser penalties for lesser crimes). According to Muhammad (see Sunan Ibn Majah 2759 and Sahih al-Bukhari 2843), anyone who financially supports a soldier (e.g., by paying taxes) is to receive the same reward as the soldier. Hence, if the penalty for American soldiers who interfere in Muslim lands is death, then American taxpayers (even civilians) are to receive the same penalty.

Since Yahya is now partners with Ijaz Ahmad, can we assume that Ijaz also agrees with Al Qaeda?

Great Britain: Honor-Violence and Forced Marriages Going Unreported Due to Fears of Islamophobia Accusations

Honor killings, forced marriages, female genital mutilation, the rape and abuse of non-Muslim girls, and other consequences of Muhammad's teachings are flourishing in Great Britain. But there's far more going on than we hear about from the media. Victims, schools, counselors, and leaders are so afraid of being labeled "racists," "bigots," "hate-mongers," and "Islamophobes," they choose not to report much of the abuse.

Here we see the real fruit of the demonization of anyone who opposes Muhammad's misogyny. One of the main goals of Muslim organizations like CAIR and ISNA (along with lower-level Muslim apologists like Yahya Snow and Ijaz Ahmad) is to keep both critics and victims of Sharia silent, so that the oppression can continue and spread unabated.

International Business Times—Honour-based violence and forced marriages in communities across the North East go unreported because victims are frightened of being branded as racist, a report by ITV News Tyne Tees has revealed.

Honour-based violence is a form of domestic abuse which occurs when victims, mainly women, are punished, very often by their relatives, if they bring shame upon their families.

Claire Phillipson from Wearside Women in Need said that while the number of people approaching her for help is alarming, what is more worrying is the number who are not.

"I have no doubt that all over the North East [England] first, second, third generation English young women are being forced into marriage," Phillipson said.

"Schools and communities are keeping silent about it, because they are concerned that they would be called racist, islamophobic," she continued. "They don't quite know where the line between culture, religion and human rights should be drawn."

According to Domestic Violence London, the abuse is not only perpetrated by men: "Sometimes female relatives will support, incite or assist" the organisation said.

"It is also not unusual for younger relatives to be selected to undertake the abuse as a way to protect senior members of the family. Sometimes contract killers and bounty hunters will also be employed."

One of the women interviewed by ITV explained she had been sent from Pakistan to the UK in order to marry a man much older than her.

"My family said they would kill me, they would shoot me. That's what would happen, if I didn't do it.

"When I complained about it, my brother and sister tried to make me touch electrical sockets with wet hands, to electrocute me, and make it look like an accident," the woman said.

According to the Halo Project,there are approximately 12 reported honour killings per year in the United Kingdom.

This does not take into account the many people who are taken abroad and whose whereabouts are unknown. (Continue Reading.)

For more on the sad situation in Great Britain, watch this:

Pakistani Christian Rebukes Yahya Snow for Minimizing Muslim Persecution of Christians

Yahya Snow is quick to condemn us when we speak out on behalf of the Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Ahmadis, or members of other groups who are being horribly oppressed in the name of Allah. Anyone who gets in the way of Islamic domination is, according to Yahya, an enemy of Allah and must be viciously attacked with lies and slander.

Yahya's recent defense of Pakistani blasphemy laws drew a response from a Pakistani Christian, who was kind enough to correct Yahya on some of the issues.

Peace and greetings in MY LORD JESUS CHRIST to all! I would like to address yahya on some misconceptions he have over this whole issue. Let me start by saying that I'm not an arm chair expert sitting on my chair bad mouthing muslims as you mentioned. I'm a Christian living in Pakistan in the same city where this is happening as we speak. You said something along the lines that people are blowing this out of proportion but let me inform you that the trial of Sawan masih was held in an undisclosed jail cell for the fear of his life and of the judge and prosecutors (if they do find him not guilty) there was no defense witness because all were threatened of death if anyone stood in defense witness stand. And then sawan masih is found guilty on the charges of blasphemy and not one, let me repeat not ONE of the 3000 muslims who attacked the Christian community of about 5000 people was convicted due the lack of evidence. You mentioned something along the lines of personal disputes and you couldn't be more right. The dispute was between sawan and his Muslim"friend" who had a business of selling alcohol (mashallah brother, selling or consuming alcohol is haram in your religion and illegal in my country but that Muslim never got convicted for that either ...why? Lack of evidence Offcoarse) And if you didn't know then let me inform you that 200 Christian houses were burned along with 2 churches and more than 100 Christians were killed all in the name of personal dispute that you so clearly mentioned. You mentioned islamophobes, funny word it is because to Christians who live on Pakistan its not an irrational fear of Islam but a very horrible reality of life for being just a Christian. You mentioned something about these people being minorities but let me pop your mental cheery that in Pakistan since 1947 there have been over 2000+ cases of blasphemy (that's about 35 per year roughly since Pakistan got its independence) and none was ever convicted in the court of law but only about fewer than 10 survived. The rest were brutally murdered some along with their families all in the name of peace and tolerance by that small minority of muslims but none of the majority of peace loving muslims intervened. These same "MINORITIES" regularly kill all and any one who talks against these atrocities including muslims (salman tehseer and shahbaz bhatti being prime examples). So when you or any taqiyya practicing muslims tells us that the radicals are minorities and the majority of muslims are peace loving and tolerant, i can only come to two conclusions. One being that you really don't understand the meaning of this simple English word or you are just too ashamed to admit to the fact that all muslims are like that. I hope i have cleared some of the bugs that you had in your mind. In Christ, take care

Pro-Sharia Islamist Yahya Snow Defends Pakistani Blasphemy Laws and the Execution of Christians

There are two ways to defend Islamic blasphemy laws. First, there's the direct approach, which is used in Muslim-majority countries. In countries like Pakistan, Muslims can simply appeal to the commands of Muhammad, who ordered his followers to execute critics of Islam:

Second, there's the indirect approach, which is used in Western nations. In countries like the United States or Great Britain, Muslims can't silence critics by killing them, so they have to silence critics by other means. The weapon of choice is an endless barrage of name-calling hurled at anyone who dares draw attention to the horrific treatment of non-Muslims (and Muslim women) in Muslim countries.

Most disturbing is that the Muslims who hurl abuse at anyone who criticizes Sharia typically pretend to be interested in open discussion of these atrocities, even though they attempt to silence all such discussion.

Consider Yahya Snow's take on the recent news of a Pakistani Christian receiving a death sentence for supposedly mocking Muhammad.

There you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. We "love" hearing about one of our Christian brothers being sentenced to death, because it gives us ammunition against Islam. Yahya probably thinks we enjoy reading about Christians being slaughtered in Foxe's Book of Martyrs because it helps us condemn non-Christians. (This reminds me of one of my debates with Sami Zaatari, when he claimed that the Qur'an doesn't promote rape when it allows Muslims to have sex with their war-captives, since the women wanted to have sex with the Muslim men who had slaughtered their families. Muslims, it seems, often think we enjoy being treated as "the worst of creatures," as Qur'an 98:6 calls us.)

Notice how Yahya pretends that he wants free, open discussion. Well, how exactly is that going to happen? Muslims certainly aren't doing anything to stop Sharia, so the task falls to non-Muslims. But when non-Muslims talk about Islamic blasphemy laws, or the persecution of Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries, or the rampant sexual abuse of little girls in accordance with the Qur'an, we're condemned as "bigots," "hate-mongers," "racists," and the all-too-common "Islamophobes."

But suppose we take Yahya's advice and keep our dhimmi mouths closed. What then? The only thing that stops these killings is the outcry from Western nations (which embarrasses Muslim leaders into calling off the executions). If we follow Yahya's advice, there will be no outcry, and the executions will proceed. Hence, the man who pretends to want open discussion is actually defending blasphemy laws and the execution of Christians.

Given Yahya's open hatred for Christianity and Christians, is anyone surprised?

Yahya Snow's Debate Challenge on "Thighing" Happily Accepted!

Yahya Snow has repeatedly accused Sam and me of deliberately lying about Muhammad "thighing" Aisha (i.e., placing his penis between her legs and moving back and forth until he ejaculates), even though our claims come directly from Islamic scholars and Islam's most trusted sources.

However, Yahya denies that he was trying to conceal facts when he blocked Sam's link to an Islamic fatwa site proving that Yahya was wrong, and when he blocked Sam's link to our discussion of the evidence that Muhammad thighed Aisha. So he wasn't actually trying to conceal anything by concealing the evidence against him!

Yahya is now trying to save face by issuing a debate challenge:

Since Sam has been challenging Yahya to debate for a while now (Yahya deletes such challenges, but not in an effort to conceal them, mind you!), we're shocked that he has finally agreed to debate.

Apparently, Yahya would rather debate me than Sam "the Assyrian Encyclopedia" Shamoun, but we're happy to accommodate him.

So the next time we have a set of shows on ABN, you can all look forward to finally seeing Yahya's face. We'll patch him in via Skype, and we'll have a wonderful discussion of the Islamic practice of "thighing" (unless, of course, Yahya comes up with an excuse for backing out of the debate he challenged me to!).

On a related note, after Yahya debates me, perhaps he'll finally get around to accepting Anthony's debate challenge (we already know he'll never debate Sam!):

Yahya Snow Conceals Proof That Muhammad Thighed Aisha

For years, Yahya Snow has been accusing us of lying about Muhammad "thighing" Aisha (putting his penis between her legs and moving back and forth until he ejaculates). I've ignored Yahya for most of that time, because I learned long ago that he doesn't know even the basics about the Qur'an or Hadith, and that, when I quote the Qur'an or Hadith, he simply doesn't care. It's kind of pointless to argue with a Westernized Muslim who thinks he knows more about Islam than his own prophet!

Things changed recently when Yahya began attacking Sam right after Sam's mother died. This was a new low, even for Yahya (who was already a few rungs below Nadir Ahmed on the apologetics and character ladders). Yahya continued attacking Sam by claiming, once again, that we had fabricated the issue of thighing. Most of his article, as usual, consists of personal attacks (standard practice for lower level apologists, who try to demean the opposition rather than refute their arguments). But there are a few portions where he attempts to make some substantive claims:

So there you have it. The claim that Muhammad thighed Aisha is based on a fatwa quoted on a Christian website, we've been rebuked into silence on the issue (i.e., we're not simply ignoring Yahya), etc.

Once again, Yahya displays his ignorance, and it's up to Sam and me to show him his error. Sam began by posting a link to a fatwa on Islam Web:

Since Islam Web is an Islamic fatwa site run by Muslim scholars, you might expect Yahya to immediately correct his error and apologize. Instead, Yahya erased Sam's comment and the link to the fatwa! Even now, Yahya's site claims that our accusation is based on a fatwa we found on a Christian site. So Yahya knows that his claim is false, but he conceals the truth by erasing the proof!

But Yahya wasn't done. After I wrote a brief summary of the evidence (taken directly from Sahih al-Bukhari) that Muhammad promoted the thighing of virgins, Sam posted a comment in the comments section of Yahya's article:

Yahya, since you've accused us of lying about Muhammad and thighing, it's only fair of you to post a link to the following article on thighing, so that your readers can examine the evidence and judge for themselves whether we are lying or not. Please include the following link in all articles and videos in which you accuse us of lying about thighing:

Muhammad and the Thighing of Aisha

Yahya had challenged us for evidence and claimed that we were lying, so it seemed fair to let his readers examine both sides of the issue. Instead, Yahya again immediately erased the comment and the link! Sam even invited Yahya to come on our show and debate the evidence, but Yahya erased that comment as well! It seems that Yahya wants to keep his readers in complete ignorance of the facts, pretending that we're running from him, while simultaneously calling us liars!

This is precisely what we've come to expect from Yahya, and it's why we never take his accusations seriously. He tries desperately to portray himself as an apologist, but when he is confronted with actual evidence and sources, his solution is to conceal the evidence and sources. He's like a spoiled child who throws a tantrum to get attention, but doesn't know what to do when he suddenly gets the attention he craves. This means, of course, that we will end up ignoring him again. But as soon as we ignore him, he will claim that we've been rebuked into silence!

I suppose we should all be thankful for Yahya. He's shown us the depths a person has to go to in order to defend Islam. Thank you, Yahya, for reminding us why we could never do what you do!

To sum up, here's a screenshot of Yahya's comments section:

Kind of reminds me of Muhammad's companion Uthman burning all Qur'an manuscripts in order to conceal the differences and pretend that there's only one Qur'an!

The Evidence is Mounting

In a recent blog post David provided some strong evidence that Yahya Snow has apostatized from Islam, or so it would at least appear from the fact that Yahya was promoting a video that attacks Allah, Muhammad and Shabir Ally, calling each in their turn “worthless” and “stupid.” Since Yahya insists that he does first rate apologetic work, which means he surely must have watched the video before promoting it, the only conclusion that seemed possible was that Yahya was jumping ship with Paul Bilal Williams.

If that isn’t enough to clinch the matter, new evidence for Yahya’s apostasy has come to light confirming David’s original findings, as seen in the following screenshot from Yahya’s blog:

Here is the video from the above screenshot:

According to the man in this video, before he had ever heard or read the Qur’an he had a dream in which: 1) he was shown Ayatul Kursi, i.e. the verse of the throne found in Surah 2:255; 2) which he couldn’t read at the time since it was in Arabic and the man was unlettered when it comes to Arabic; and 3) he was terrified upon reflecting on the content of his dream, at least until a friend came along and changed his mind.

I don’t know about you folks, but this story seems oddly familiar. In fact, it sounds just like the story of Muhammad’s alleged call to prophethood. Muhammad claimed to have received revelation, said he couldn’t read what was shown to him, and he was terrified as a result. The only thing missing is any statement from this man that he wanted to commit suicide like Muhammad did after he thought he was possessed by a demon.

The problem of course is that mainstream Muslims believe Muhammad was the last prophet. In the view of orthodox Sunni Muslims any claim that another prophet or messenger has or will follow after Muhammad is considered to be a denial of Islam. Since this is just what Yahya’s recent post amounts to, it is obvious that he is an apostate given that he no longer believes in or follows Muhammad as the last and final messenger.

Yahya Snow Posts Attack on Allah, Muhammad, and Shabir Ally

Apparently, following the recent apostasy of Paul Williams, our Muslim friend Yahya Snow had second thoughts about Islam and has apostatized too.

Earlier today, Nakdimon posted a comment:

Nakdimon's link took me to an article by Paul Williams, in which Paul declares that Sam Shamoun and I were (partially) vindicated in one of our arguments about the Qur'an. You might think that, in response, a Muslim apologist like Yahya Snow would post a critique of Paul's claims. Not so. Surprisingly, Yahya decided to post a vicious attack against Shabir Ally and the position that the Bible has been corrupted:

The video Yahya posted begins with some claims by Shabir Ally, but then goes on to refute Shabir. The video goes so far as to call Shabir stupid and deceptive, and even calls Allah a "worthless God." Watch it for yourself:

It's difficult to understand why a Muslim would post a video calling Shabir stupid and deceptive, let alone one that calls Allah "worthless." The video even recommends my YouTube channel at the end! So is Yahya telling us that he has been persuaded by our arguments, and that he has finally come to his senses and left Islam?

The only alternative would be that Yahya is so incredibly sloppy and superficial in his apologetics, that he carelessly posts attacks on his own position, because he's too lazy to actually examine what he's posting. And we couldn't believe that about the great Yahya Snow, could we?