Muhammad's Wives Speak out against Sex with Slave Girls (and Are Promptly Silenced by Allah)

Muslim men take it for granted that they are allowed to have sex with their slave-girls. After all, the Qur'an grants them this right (see, e.g., Surah 4:24), and Muhammad himself had sex with his slave-girls. What often gets overlooked is the impact such adulterous affairs have on the wives of Muslims. Can we even imagine how a woman must feel when her husband goes to a slave girl for sex instead of to his his own wife? We see Muhammad's wives going through this very struggle.

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3411--It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you" [66:1] until the end of the verse.

So let's follow the chain of events.

(1) Surah 4:3 declares that Muslims may have up to four wives.
(2) Muhammad receives Surah 33:50, which gives him (and him alone) the right to have even more wives.
(3) Various verses in the Qur'an declare that Muslim men may have sex with their slave-girls and female captives.
(4) Muhammad (who already had nine wives who were incredibly jealous of one another) chooses to have sex with his slave girl.
(5) Two of his favorite wives were extremely upset by this, and they compel him to stop his adulterous affair.
(6) Allah tells Muhammad, in effect, "Why are you listening to your wives? Didn't I tell you that you are free to have sex with your slave girls?"

Thus, Muhammad's wives simply had to accept the fact that he was free to have sex with his beautiful slave girl (just as they had to accept the fact that he was free to show favoritism among his wives). If Allah has no concern for the feelings of the Mothers of Believers, should we expect him to be concerned about the feelings of other women?

Will Muhammad Be Leaning in Paradise?

According to Muhammad, a man must not favor one wife over the other. If he does, he will be leaning on the Day of Resurrection:

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3394--It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: "Whoever has two wives and is inclined to favor one of them over the other, he will come on the Day of Resurrection with half of his body leaning."

Amazingly, Muhammad favored Aisha over his other wives, and all of his wives knew it. Indeed, Muhammad's wives practically begged him to treat them equitably. But he simply wouldn't. (Note: In the following Hadith, the phrase "daughter of Abu Quhafah" is a derogatory reference to Aisha.)

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3396--Aishah said: "The wives of the Prophet sent Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, to the Messenger of Allah. She asked permission to enter when he was lying with me under my cover. He gave her permission to enter, and she said: 'O Messenger of Allah, your wives have sent me to you to ask you to be equitable with regard to the matter of the daughter of Abu Quhafah.' I (Aishah) kept quiet and the Messenger of Allah said to her: 'O my daughter! Do you not love the one whom I love?' She said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Then love this one.' Fatimah stood up when she heard this and left the Messenger of Allah, and went back to the wives of the Prophet. She told them what she had said, and what he had said to her. They said to her: 'We do not think that you have been of any avail to us. Go back to the Messenger of Allah and say to him: Your wives are urging you to be equitable with regard to the matter of the daughter of Abu Quhafah.' Fatimah said: 'No, by Allah; I will never speak to him about her again.'" Aishah said: "So the wives of the Prophet sent Zainab bint Jahsh to the Messenger of Allah; she was one who was somewhat equal to me in rank in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah. And I have never seen a woman who was better in religious commitment than Zainab, more fearing of Allah, more honest in speech, more dutiful in upholding the ties of kinship, more generous in giving charity, and devoted in giving herself in acts of charity, by means of which she sought to draw closer to Allah. But she was quick-tempered; however, she was also quick to calm down. She asked permission to enter upon the Messenger of Allah when he was with Aishah under her cover, in the same situation as when Fatimah had entered. The Messenger of Allah gave her permission to enter and she said: 'O Messenger of Allah, your wives have sent me to ask you to be equitable with regard to the daughter of Abu Quhafah.' Then she verbally abused me at length, and I was watching the Messenger of Allah to see if he would allow me to respond. Zainab went on until I realized that the Messenger of Allah would not disapprove if I responded. Then I spoke back to her in such a way, until I silenced her. Then the Messenger of Allah said: 'She is the daughter of Abu Bakr.'"

So Muhammad favored Aisha above all his other wives, and Zainab was his second favorite. This means that Muhammad will be leaning on the Day of Resurrection.

Beat her for not covering her hands...

Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder in sadness... how is it getting to this? People are just too blind to see that women the world over are being oppressed by Islam.

Here's yet another example: a man is turning to this Muslim website to ask what should be done about his disobedient wife. He has asked her repeatedly to cover her hands, but she does not listen (perhaps she likes using them?) This site, Islam Q&A, has delivered what it's name promises: Islamic judgement. Verdict? Beat her if you must. While you're at it, threaten her with divorce.

President Obama and Durban II

Israel faces the nightmare scenario that it now stands alone -- and against America. Whether through naivety, ideology or rank malice, there is now a fifth columnist in the White House, delivering (however unwittingly) the agenda of the enemies of the west and undermining the cause of the free world. The vast majority of Americans who staunchly support Israel's struggle to exist in the face of genocidal attack, and understand only too well its role as the front line of defence for the free world, need to become aware of what is being done in their name. Read more.

"Miracles of the Qur'an" Part 2: The Numerical Miracle

An astounding number of Muslim websites propose that the Qur'an is demonstrably miraculous due to its "Numerical Miracles".

For the uninitiated, I will provide an example of the general form of this argument: Muslim X provides the number of verses of some chapter, divides or multiplies it by another number, and compares the result to some third number (which is ascribed significance by some means or another).

Here is an example posted by Muslim apologist Osama Abdallah in response to a recent blog:

The sum of the Noble Chapters (Surahs) in the Holy Quran is 6555 (1+2+3+....+114= 6555). The total number of Noble Verses in the Holy Quran is 6236. When we added each Chapter's number with its Noble Verses' total, we found out that the SUM of the ODD results = 6555. And When we added each Chapter's number with its Noble Verses' total, we found out that the SUM of the EVEN results = 6236

Now, I don't know what these numbers mean. But I do know that such amazing accuracy is ABNORMAL, and could not have been done by a human, especially 1,400 years ago.

This is not the only "numerical miracle" that Muslims provide. It is one of many similar examples, which you can find here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Now that we have seen what the "numerical miracles" are, let's examine the flaws of these assertions.

Problems with The "Numerical Miracles" Argument

1 - Non-Sequitur Logic

The gist of the logic can be seen in the last two sentences of Osama's post. It's basically: "These numbers work together so well that there must be a miracle here!" But this is simply false; interesting numerical patterns in no way whatsoever necessitate a miracle! It may be true that extreme improbabilities require an explanation other than chance, but even this form of soft evidence does not vindicate this Muslim argument, as we shall see in the next point.

2 - The Widespread Existence of "Miraculous" Patterns in Texts

Interesting numerical patterns exist in many instances of media, and searching for patterns will often yield results similar to the Quran's "miracles". Searching for numerical patterns in books such as Moby Dick have been demonstrated to actually provide accurate prophecies of the future! In fact, the article which mentions this was written specifically to show that one can often find word patterns if he simply looks for them. Read that article here.

3 - The Existence of Similar "Numerical Miracles" in the Bible

Finally, countless "numerical miracles" have also been proposed from within the Bible. If the argument used by Muslims were applied to the Bible, they would have to accept it as equally divine in origin as the Qur'an!

In an effort to explain this problem to Osama Abdallah, I provided a link to this site and summarized their "numerical miracle" as follows:

The number 153 is a special number, since it is the only number associated with a miracle after Jesus' resurrection.

It just so happens that if you sum up all the numbers from 1 to 17, you get 153! And 17 is important, because it's the date of Jesus' resurrection (not to mention Noah's ark!) 

On top of that, the Greek word that's used for "fish" in that verse is used exactly 17 times in the Bible! 

Not only that, but if you apply the trinity to these verses, then we see the numbers are even more miraculous! 3 x 3 x 17 = 153!!

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! The trinity is present again if you raise each of the THREE digits in "153" to the THIRD power, including the number THREE!!! Look, there are three three's, so much emphasis on trinity!
1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 = 153!

Trinity in the digits, trinity in the math, trinity in the miracle itself!!! So much trinity!

Clearly, the Muslim standard of "Numerical Miracle" is met here in this exploitation of John 21:11. Must they not then conclude that the Bible is equally inspired? They must, unless they are being inconsistent in their methodology. Which leads me to the last problem.

4 - Inconsistency in the Application of the "Numerical Miracle" Argument

Any Muslim who espouses this argument must necessarily be inconsistent in his application, because the same argument would prove the Bible to be divinely inspired.

In summary, the first argument for the miraculous nature of the Qur'an is about as abysmal as any argument can be. It's non-sequitur, it ignores similar phenomena in countless other books, and it would even necessitate a divine origin for the Bible! To top it off, the last problem means that Muslims who espouse this "miracle" must be inconsistent if they are providing this argument against the Bible.

Hopefully there will be good dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims in the comment section of this post. Upon conclusion of the discussion, keep your eyes open for the next blog in this series: examining the alleged "Literary Miracle" of the Qur'an.

"Miracles of the Qur'an" Part 1: An Introduction

In Christianity, there is one miracle upon which we hinge the truth of our faith: the Resurrection. If it did not happen, then Christianity is false. If it happened, and if Jesus truly is the Risen Lord, then Christianity is true.

In Islam, there is not one concrete miracle or event which determines the truth of the faith. If there is something that comes close, though, it's the Qur'an. Though not as objectively testable, a basic principle applies: if the Qur'an is from God, then Islam is true. If the Qur'an is not from God, then Islam is false. Thus, an examination of the Qur'an is certainly merited. What better place to start than to examine the Muslims' positive case?

The Positive Case for the Qur'an

The mainstay of the Muslim positive case is the stipulated "miraculous nature" of the Qur'an. Muslims argue that the miracles of the Qur'an prove it's divine origin. Here are the five miracles I have heard them use the most (in no particular order):

1 - The Numerical Miracle

2 - The Literary Miracle

3 - The Preservation Miracle

4 - The Prophetic Miracles

5 - The Scientific Miracles

Interspersed in our blogs throughout the next few weeks, we will examine these claims to varying degrees. The hope is to systematically address the positive case for the Qur'an. The deeper our investigation, the better, but depth will most likely be a function of the dialogue within the comments.

I pray that we will glorify God in this endeavour, keeping his glory at the center of our purpose.

The Ibn Masud Problem: Muslims' Flawed Responses

If you've been reading this blog for the past few months, you must be very familiar with Ibn Masud and the arguments that issue forth from him against the modern Quran (i.e. the Zaid Standard Version, or ZSV). If you are new to this blog, welcome! Allow me to recap some of the information for you.

Ibn Masud and the Corruption of the ZSV

Ibn Masud is Muhammad's first choice of Quran teachers for his people:

Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96).

Notice Muhammad starts by naming Ibn Masud, and the narrator emphasizes this fact. Indeed, the narrator goes on to say that he loves Ibn Masud. We can safely infer that this hadith intends to convey Ibn Masud as the best teacher of the Quran.

Being a proud expert of the Quran, Ibn Masud would agree that his mastery of the Quran was unrivaled. Of his own prowess, he says:

''Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) (ra): By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah's Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488). ''

However, Ibn Masud does not think highly of today's Quran, the one collected by Zaid. In comparing himself to Zaid, he says:

''The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur'an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth". (Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444)

As we can see, the differences between Ibn Masud's Quran and Zaid's Quran were not minor. Before even examining them, we can know that they were big enough for Ibn Masud to call the reading of Zaid's Quran "deceit". But when we examine the evidence, we find out why. 

According to Ibn Abi Daud's Kitab al-Masahif, we find out that Ibn Masud only includes 111 surahs in his Quran (as opposed to the ZSV's 114). In addition, chapters that were found in both codices often had many variants; within surat al-Baqara alone, 101 variants exist. Not all of these variants are differences in spelling. For example:

Surah 2:275 begins with the words Allathiina yaakuluunar-ribaa laa yaquumuuna - "those who devour usury will not stand". Ibn Mas'ud's text had the same introduction but after the last word there was added the expression yawmal qiyaamati, that is, they would not be able to stand on the "Day of Resurrection".

Naturally, since Muhammad told people to go to Ibn Masud if they wanted to learn the Quran, many Muslims studied under Ibn Masud. Ibn Masud's version of the Quran was thus perpetuated to his students. The aforementioned variant, for example, was included in the codex of Talha ibn Musarrif, one of Ibn Masud's students in Kufa.

The Muslim Responses

So far, there have been three Muslim responses on this blog to the above case.

1 - "Ibn Masud's codex was his own personal notebook; it is not to be taken as a variant codex of the Quran!"

The desperate nature of this response is so obvious I am amazed anyone would even utter it. But alas, this is the most common response I have seen so far.

The main problem with this is that it is demonstrably false! We know historically that Ibn Masud taught his version of the Quran to his students (as mentioned above). Therefore, we cannot possibly say that he just considered it his own personal notebook.

Another problem with this response is that it goes against the supporting evidence; we know that Ibn Masud did not want to give up his codex when it came time to burn the variants. Why would Uthman want a notebook to be burnt when everything else he was burning were manuscripts? Clearly, if Quranic manuscripts were what was being burnt, and Uthman wanted Ibn Masud's book burnt, it was probably not just a notebook!

But let's give the Muslim response the benefit of the doubt. We may just happen to find something like this in an archaeological dig:

Uthman's List of Things to Burn 

1 - All Quranic manuscripts

2 - Ibn Masud's notebook, which is definitely not a manuscript...

Even after finding such a chit, the Muslim response still has a huge problem: why on earth would Ibn Masud be so hesitant to give up his "notebook", even resisting the command of the khalifa? I doubt he would do so without good reason.

And this brings me to my final point: the supporting evidence from Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir makes the pieces fit. Ibn Masud must have considered Zaid's Quran such a deceit that he was willing to resist the command of the khalifa. Not only does this supporting evidence pass the historial method's criterion of embarrassing admission, it also makes all the pieces fit (i.e. the criterion of illumination). The Muslim response, on the other hand, makes no sense, ignores the criteria of historical investigation, and indeed just throws out historical evidence on a whim.

2 - "Ibn Masud was just one of many teachers of the Quran!"

This is true, but it's a distortion. At the very least, he was one of the top four teachers of the Quran. But if we are to trust Masruq (which we should, since he must be trustworthy if he is capable of transmitting a hadith graded sahih) then we would conclude that Ibn Masud is the best teacher of the Quran.

But again, for argument's sake, let's pretend he's just as good as the other 3 that Muhammad mentioned. We know that at least one of those other 3 teachers also had many variants in his Quran (Ubay ibn Kab)! So at least half of Muhammad's top 4 teachers of the Quran disagree with Zaid! And it's quite possible that the other 2 did as well, we just can't verify their codices since the variants were all burnt by Uthman.

Best case scenario? Even if the implications of the hadith are wrong and Ibn Masud is just one of the four best teachers of the Quran, we can be certain that half of Muhammad's top teachers of the Quran disagree with the ZSV. These disagreements include different whole chapters as well as different verses and different words.

3 - "The 'variants' in Ibn Masud's codex were no variants at all! They were part of the 7 ahruf, or perhaps just differences in qirrat!"

This, too, is a horridly desperate effort to save the Quran from having variants. No reasonable definition of ahruf or qirrat, no matter how broad, can encompass whole missing chapters! Ibn Masud had 111 chapters in his Quran, leaving out chapters 1, 113, and 114. He considered these to be prayers revealed by God for the benefit of Muslims, but not surahs intended for the Quran. (As a side note, Ubay ibn Kab included these 3 surahs in his codex, along with 2 others. The additional 2 surahs are prayers recited by Muslims even today which many believe to be divinely revealed, but not part of the Quran).

If Muslims continue providing this as a response to the Ibn Masud problem, I would simply have to ask "What is the definition of ahruf or qirrat?" Even while ignoring the abysmal failure of anyone in history to ever provide a good definition of ahruf, (a fact that even Muslim theologians have noted) there simply can be no reasonable definition which can include missing chapters.

As it stands, all Muslim responses to the Ibn Masud problem fail, and fail miserably. There is no solid Muslim response. If you think you have one, my Muslim friends, I'd love to hear it.

British Muslim Student Kills Many in Suicide Attack in Somalia

I say here at the beginning that this has absolutely nothing at all to do with Islam, and that Western governments should focus their attention on keeping Geert Wilders out of their countries.

EVENING STANDARD--A British university student who became a suicide bomber in Somalia is believed to be the first in an outbreak of Islamic terrorism.

The 21-year-old from Ealing reportedly blew himself up at a military checkpoint killing up to 20 soldiers in the southern Somali town of Baidoa.

Raised in Britain, the bomber dropped out of a business studies course at Oxford Brookes University to travel to his country of origin in October 2007.

A member of al-Shabaab, a youth militia fighting to impose Islamic Sharia law, the man recorded a martyrdom video before his trip imploring fellow British Somalis to follow his example.

In the video he says: "Oh my people, know that I am doing this martyrdom operation for the sake of Allah. I advise you to migrate to Somalia and wage war against your enemies. Death in honour is better than life in humiliation." Read More.

Afghan Diplomat Charged in All-Day Wife Beating

As the Qur'an declares: "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 what 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." (Surah 4:34).

NY DAILY NEWS--An Afghan diplomat was charged Friday with beating his wife "like a dog" for more than 15 hours in their Queens home, prosecutors said.

Mohammed Fagirad, 30, a vice consul at the Afghanistan Consulate, brutalized his wife inside their Flushing home from about 8:30 a.m. Wednesday until nearly midnight, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

During the attack, Fagirad bit, slapped, choked and beat the 22-year-old woman with a belt, pushed her down a flight of stairs and sat on her chest, prosecutors said.

At one point, prosecutors said, Fagirad threw his wife up against a wall, held her there by the neck and then let her drop to the floor, where he beat her with a belt.

Fagirad told police his "wife was a dog and he was going to treat her like a dog," prosecutors said. Read More.

U.S. Muslim Charged with Beheading His Wife (after She Filed for Divorce)

Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder. . . .

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light. Read More.

Selections from a Lecture by Kuwaiti Professor Abdallah Nafisi

Nothing to worry about here.

Sharia Strikes Again: Killing Women vs. Stealing Goats

Arab News--We have an entrenched judicial system that is based on Divine Law and not personal whims. This is the reason why I could not understand two recent court verdicts handed out on the same day.

In the first ruling, two thieves who stole two rams were sentenced to three years imprisonment and 1,000 lashes each.

The second ruling of two years imprisonment and 200 whiplashes was for a husband who beat his wife until she swallowed her tongue and died. Read More.

BBC Discussion on the Banning of Geert Wilders

In this short video, Jay Smith, Keith Vaz, and Maajid Nawaz discuss the banning of Geert Wilders from the UK. The Muslim in this video (Nawaz) is awesome! At first, I thought he might be complaining about the banning just for show, but as the discussion proceeded, it becomes clear that he is genuinely upset with the UK government for shutting down free speech. As he sees it, the government shut down not only Geert Wilders's right to express his views, but also the right of Muslims to refute Wilders in public debate. My man!

(Notice also Keith Vaz's pathetic response: "If you want to debate, then go to Holland.")

"Should Wilders Have Been Granted Entry to the UK?"

And the Winner Is...

Osama Abdallah!

Congratulations goes out to Osama. Out of all the blogs we've ever written, the one with the most comments was the one titled "The Abdallah-Wood Debate Revisited." Over 120 comments! Only one other blog has ever come close. Not only was Abdallah mentioned in the title, he was also an avid participator in the comment thread itself. Let's recap some of his invaluable contributions (bolds are Osama's emphases, colored ones are mine):

1. Sam Shamoun is very stupid
   
2. he has his phony agenda
   
3. Are you just going to bark your tantrum?
   
4. Or are you gonna bark your tantrum again?
   
5. Blindness and foolishness at its best.
   
6. I don't talk with fools. You seem to be a big one.
   
7. You are blind and dumb.
   
8. Your bible is so confused in its characters that one can't know for sure if there are 3 Johns, 4 Johns or even 5 Johns.
   
9. You call such a joke a Divine Revelation from GOD Almighty?
   
10. Obviously, you are a filthy liar
    
11. You filthy liar
    
12. Again, you filthy liar
    
13. Also, you are too dumb and ignorant
    
14. Obviously, this clown, Dan, had been smoked so bad, that...
    
15. What a ridiculous clown indeed!
    
16. Dan the clown,
    
17. Your stupid blog is (by) a western clown not knowing Arabic
    
18. Now get lost to Hell clown. I am done with you.
    
19. Even the christian that I quoted is a filthy liar like most of the christinas I dealt with!
    
20. He was left silenced like a muzzled dog.
    
21. I smashed his bible into pieces for him.
    
22. this proves that you are quite an evil and stupid man.
    
23. As to the rest of your tantrum, yawn..... I already refuted all of this garbage of yours above.
    
24. Get lost to Hell loser.
    
25. The rabid christians on this board
    
26. You are indeed a coward and a joke, Dan, Shamoun the coward
    
27. Now Dan, get lost to Hell you hypocrite. I don't want you to convert to Islam.
    
28. You are indeed a hypocrite and a snake. 
    
29. you are a polytheist trinitarian pagan who worships men and idols.
    
30. I smashed your bible
    
31. You are no more than a foul-mouthed loser
    
32. Other losers started to join in as we started to expose their foul behavior and lies.
    
33. (Sam Shamoun) hides under a different name and dosn't have the integrity and the balls to reveal himself.
    
34. To all of the rabid christians on this board...
    
35. You are another filthy christian liar
    

All joking aside, goodness gracious, Osama! I understand that sometimes people weren't saying nice things back to you, but this amount of insults and name-calling is truly staggering!

I told Osama when he started posting on this site that I would be watching his conduct carefully. Within a few days, he has showed such poor conduct and conversational skills that I'm actually impressed (by the staggering lack of character, that is).

For mainly this reason I am declining to debate Osama. Of course, there are other reasons, too. To be explicit:

1. I have heard Muslims complain that he is not a good representation of Islam and Muslim apologetics
   
2. He doesn't seem to follow logical arguments
   
3. He does not know the difference between John the Baptist and John the Evangelist
   
4. He refuses to admit when he's mistaken
   
5. He does not attempt to accurately handle his opponents' positions.
   

I simply think it would not be productive to debate Osama. I will advise David to not debate Osama, either.

Articles on the Geert Wilders Catastrophe

In an effort to show that Islam is not a religion of violence, some Muslims are calling for the death of Geert Wilders.

Yet, as we've seen in comments on this blog, some Muslims hold that Wilders should be allowed to come to the UK and debate the issues. Here are some articles on the UK catastrophe.

Dutch anti-Islam politician turned away from Britain
LONDON (Reuters) - Right-wing Dutch legislator Geert Wilders, who is being prosecuted at home for anti-Islam remarks, said he was barred from entering Britain on Thursday after he landed in defiance of a government ban. Read More.

The Arrest of Geert Wilders
Multiculti England will tolerate any intolerance, except the guy who points out the intolerance. We can't tolerate that. Read More.

An Open Letter to the Government of the UK
With this edict, the government of the UK has broken faith with its own glorious tradition of enshrining freedom of speech, and embarked on an authoritarian course of setting the boundaries of political debate. With this action, the government of the UK has also broken faith with its neighbors in the European Union by taking the unprecedented measure of barring entry to a democratically elected representative, and, in Mr. Wilders’ case, party leader from another EU member state. In so doing, the government of the UK has additionally given lie to the organizing EU principle of “open borders” among member states, demonstrating a capricious will to close its borders against ideas of which it disapproves. Read More.

Intimidating critics of Islam
We lost more than a million jobs in the past few months, the headlines remind us. So last month's story about a Dutch court's ruling that Geert Wilders was "inciting hatred and discrimination" - and that "it is in the public interest to prosecute" him - understandably didn't make the American news. Read More.

Geert Wilders Denied Entrance to the UK and Taken into Custody

Notice how the BBC tries to put all the blame on Geert Wilders (listen to the interview).

A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" has been sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK.

Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.

But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office. Read More.

Two things are worthy of note. First, it's ironic that the British government refuses to admit Wilders into the UK because they're worried about Muslims responding violently, since Wilders's entire point is that Islam causes Muslims to respond violently. It's as if Muslims are saying, "How dare you call us violent! We'll teach you a lesson by rioting!" It's as if the UK government is saying, "Of course Muslims respond violently, but we don't want people like Wilders pointing it out. We want to pave a smooth road for the Muslims to take over the UK."

Second, far from protecting Great Britain from violence, the actions of the British government will only encourage Muslims to respond with violence and riots when they don't like something. Muslims in the UK now know that their recent outbursts have intimidated the government, and that Parliament will bow to the Muslim will. What's going to happen the next time Muslims want something? Riots anyone?

Zaid ibn Thabit vs. Ubayy ibn Ka'b on Surah 33:6

Our Muslim friends (at least, those who have done the slightest bit of investigation) will acknowledge that there were variants among the earliest codices of the Qur'an. However, they will insist that these variants were nothing but dialectical differences, and that the perfect preservation of the Qur'an is therefore not in question. Is this the case? Let's consider a variant in Surah 33.

Surah 33:6, in the ZSE (Zaid Standard Edition of the Qur'an), reads as follows:

The Prophet is closer
To the Believers than
Their own selves,
And his wives are
Their mothers. Blood-relations
Among each other have
Closer personal ties,
In the Decree of Allah,
Than (the Brotherhood of)
Believers and Muhajirs:
Nevertheless do ye
What is just to your
Closest friends: such is
The writing of the Decree
(Of Allah).

In his popular translation of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali adds the following note.

In spiritual relationships the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer--closer to our real interests--than our own selves. In some Qira'ahs, like that of Ubayy ibn Ka'ab, occur also the words "and he is a father of them", which imply his spiritual relationship and connection with the words "and his wives are their mothers". Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zayd ibn Harthah by the appellation Zayd ibn Muhammad (33:40): such an application is really disrespectful to the Prophet.

Thus, according to Ubayy ibn Ka'b (one of Muhammad's top reciters), the Zaid Standard Edition is missing the words "and he is a father of them." Ali even notes that other Qira'ahs agreed with Ubayy's! (Ali also seems to find Ubayy's version more theologically satisfying.)

Such a difference cannot possibly be attributed to dialectical issues. The question for us is this: How many variants are required if we are to reject the astounding claim that the Qur'an has been miraculously and perfectly preserved? I'd say one (though, as we've seen, there's certainly no shortage of textual difficulties for Muslims).

The Abdallah-Wood Debate Revisited

For those who missed my debate with one of Islam's greatest defenders, here it is.

OSAMA'S OPENING STATEMENT


DAVID'S OPENING STATEMENT


OSAMA'S FIRST REBUTTAL


DAVID'S FIRST REBUTTAL


SECOND REBUTTALS, Q&A, CONCLUSIONS

The Child Bride Debacle Continues

CNN's latest on infant wives. Note the salient points of this video:

- Both the 8-year-old and her mother are against this marriage.
- The marriage was a deal to settle the father's debt.
- The Muslim judge rules in favor of the 47 year old husband.
- The Saudi representative says: "We cannot say the judge is wrong".

A young girl's innocence and hope is one of the most beautiful treasures of this world. It breaks my heart that this girl's innocence and hope has been ripped away from her. Her life will be lived with a man she did not want. It sickens me that her pleas, as well as the pleas of millions of other girls, will go unheard:

"I am a child, not a woman. Please protect my childhood by law."

...all because of one man 1400 years ago.