Muhammad on Personal Integrity

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3818--It was narrated that Adiyy bin Hatim said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever swears an oath, then sees something better than it, let him do that which is better and leave his oath.'"

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3810--It was narrated from Abu Musa that the Prophet said: "There is nothing on Earth that I swear an oath upon, and I see that something else is better, but I do that which is better."

Sharia in Practice: 75-Year-Old Woman Sentenced to 40 Lashes after Men Bring Her Bread

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 9 (UPI) -- A 75-year-old Saudi Arabian woman has been sentenced to receive 40 lashes for hosting two unrelated men in her house, local media reported.

The Saudi daily newspaper al-Watan said the woman, Khamisa Mohammed Sawadi, has appealed her sentence after being charged with offenses against Islam by the religious police, the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, CNN reported Monday.

Sawadi says the two men in her house were a man she considers her son because she breast-fed him as a baby and a friend who was escorting him as he delivered bread to the elderly woman.

"It's made everybody angry because this is like a grandmother," Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Huwaider told CNN. "Forty lashes -- how can she handle that pain? You cannot justify it." Source.

Sara Azmeh Rasmussen Burns a Hijab

Sara Rasmussen is a former Muslim (she now considers herself a "cultural Muslim"). I'd say she just earned herself infinity cool points.

RASMUSSEN BURNS A HIJAB

Scientific Flaws in the Quran:Shooting Stars at Demons

Recently, I received an email from a Muslim friend who was adamant that there are no scientific errors in the Quran. I responded by saying that there is no plausible defense for the shooting star dilemma.

If this issue is new to you, allow me to explain. The Qur'an teaches that stars are fires set up in the sky to guard Heaven against demons. The demons want to hear what God is saying so they try to sneak up to heaven. If they are found, the guardians of heaven will hurl stars at them to chase them off.

In case you didn't catch it, there's a huge problem with this teaching: stars and shooting stars are not the same thing! Stars are giant balls of gas burning millions of miles away, and "shooting stars" are meteorites, or galactic debris that has entered the earth's atmosphere (i.e. much much much much smaller than stars!).

Truly, this is the book Muslims defend as scientifically miraculous! Don't believe that the Qur'an could actually say such horribly unscientific things? Look at the four passages below.

15:16-18

It is We Who have set out the zodiacal signs in the heavens, and made them fair-seeming to (all) beholders; And (moreover) We have guarded them from every evil spirit accursed: But any that gains a hearing by stealth, is pursued by a flaming fire, bright (to see).

37:6-10

We have indeed decked the lower heaven with beauty (in) the stars, (For beauty) and for guard against all obstinate rebellious evil spirits, (So) they should not strain their ears in the direction of the Exalted Assembly but be cast away from every side, Repulsed, for they are under a perpetual penalty, Except such as snatch away something by stealth, and they are pursued by a flaming fire, of piercing brightness.

67:5

And we have, (from of old), adorned the lowest heaven with Lamps, and We have made such (Lamps) (as) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones, and have prepared for them the Penalty of the Blazing Fire.

72:8-9

(Demons are speaking)'And we pried into the secrets of heaven; but we found it filled with stern guards and flaming fires. 'We used, indeed, to sit there in (hidden) stations, to (steal) a hearing; but any who listen now will find a flaming fire watching him in ambush.

My Muslim friend denied that the Quran was speaking about shooting stars, and he adamantly defended the fact that regular stars fit the bill for these ayaat. He said: "I can't possibly understand why you would state that the verse refers to shooting stars, meteorites, asteroids, comets or whatever else, unless you were not aware of this fact regarding stars (i.e. that stars move)."

Well, there are two reasons.

First, the ayaat support this interpretation. Let's take a look at 67:5. It says: "we have made such (Lamps [stars]) missiles to drive away the Evil Ones" On face value, this seems to say that stars can be used missiles made to drive away satans (demons). This implies shooting stars.

Why would God want to shoot demons? Surah 15 ayaat 16-18 explains that the stars were made as adornment for the skies, but also as a guard against jinn; if a jinn were to somehow "gain a hearing by stealth" then it would be pursued by "a flaming fire." Again, at face value, it seems that these stars serve at least two purposes: for adornment and for launching at jinn, and the second happens because the jinn attempt to hear something. 

Well what are the jinn trying to hear? Surah 37 tells us they are trying to hear "the Exalted Assembly". In surah 72, we see the jinn admit that they were trying to listen to "the secrets of heaven", but when they attempted to listen, they found guards with fires (stars), and those fires are now hurled at them if they try to litsen (presumably by the guards).

So, just reading the Qur'an for what it's worth, it seems as if it's saying that God (or angels) hurls stars (the ones that adorn the night skies) at demons when they try to hear the secrets of heaven. This implies that the stars go from being stationary to being launched, as we would expect a missile to work. The only thing that resembles a launched star is a meteorite.

Second, Muhammad supports this interpretation. Sahih al-Muslim #5538 informs us:

As we were sitting during the night with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), a meteor shot gave a dazzling light.  Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:  “What did you say in the pre-Islamic days when there was such a shot (of meteor)?”  They said:  “Allah and His Messenger know best (the actual position), but we, however, used to say that that very night a great man had been born and a great man had died,” whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:  “(These meteors) are shot neither at the death of anyone nor on the birth of anyone.  Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, issues Command when He decides to do a thing.  Then (the Angels) supporting the Throne sing His glory, then sing the dwellers of heaven who are near to them until this glory of God reaches them who are in the heaven of this world.  Then those who are near the supporters of the Throne ask these supporters of the Throne:  ‘What your Lord has said?’ And they accordingly inform them what He says.  Then the dwellers of heaven seek information from them until this information reaches the heaven of this world.  In this process of transmission (the jinn snatches) what he manages to overhear and he carries it to his friends. And when the Angels see the jinn they attack them with meteors.”

From this hadith in Sahih al-Muslim, we see that Muhammad agrees entirely with all the conclusions we drew from the Quranic ayaat, including that the stars in question are shooting stars.

What have we seen so far? We've seen:

1 - The ayaat, on face value, seem to say that the guardians of heaven hurl stars at demons. This equates stars with meteors.

2 - The hadith supports this interpretation.

Thus, the Quran is scientifically flawed, at least in regards to the issue of shooting stars. The hadith support this conclusion. This is incontrovertible and any argument against this conclusion twists the obvious interpretation and ignores Muhammad's own words.

* NOTE = After posting this, the Muslim friend with whom I was dialoguing took offense to my representation of his point of view. He says he was only commenting on 67:5, not all the verses, when made his conclusion. This note serves to clarify his position.

How Will Islam Conquer the UK? Anjem Choudary Tells All!

In this short video, Anjem Choudary (a UK jihadist) explains how Islam will take authority in the UK. (Note: He makes some very interesting admissions here.)

An Atheist Responds to Zakir Naik

These videos show clips of Dr. Zakir Naik telling his Muslim audience how to silence atheists using the amazing scientific accuracy of the Qur'an.

Since it's only fair to give atheists a chance to respond, we should consider the counterpoints of an atheist.

PART ONE


PART TWO

David on "Iron Sharpens Iron"

Friends,

I'll be on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio program today at 3:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time). Tune in for a fun conversation on Islam. Click here to go to the site. The link for live streaming is on the right.

********UPDATE********

The MP3 of yesterday's program can be accessed here. We talked about differences between Christian and Muslim apologetics. The major differences are:

(1) Muslims must be inconsistent in apologetics, while Christians are free to be consistent.

(2) The standard Muslim arguments for Islam are circular, while the core Christian arguments are logically sound.

(3) Islam, at the end of the day, is groundless. There's no argument that provides a foundation for the religion. Christianity, on the other hand, has a foundation.

Semper Paratus Responds to Sami Zaatari

Semper Paratus, a frequent guest on this blog, has just posted a response to Sami Zaatari's "refutation" of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Whatever Zaatari thinks he has shown, I must confess at the outset, if he did not say in the article that he was attacking the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, I would have thought that his article was against Mormonism or some other heretical perversion of the Biblical faith. The fact is, the idea that God is "made up of three people", as Zaatari styles it, and that this is, pardon the grammatically awkward and theologically repugnant expression, "basically exactly like having 3 people in an office, Tom Dick and Harry", is hardly something that any orthodox Christian would recognize as the teaching of the Bible or as the God that he or she seeks to love with all his or her heart, soul, mind, and strength. Indeed, take away the Christian terminology of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, which Sami grafted onto his counterfeit description of the Christian God, and substitute other more appropriate names in their place – such as al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat – and what Sami has described looks more like the gods that Islam’s prophet once proclaimed at the prompting of Satan than it does anything like the God of Christianity. Read more.

Responding to Sami Zaatari: A Case Study in Misinterpretation

This article is mostly a response to Sami Zaatari, but there is a universal learning point at the end. If you'd like to skip to it, now's the time :-)


A few weeks ago, I posted an article titled "Sharia in Practice: Letting Muslim Girls Burn for Lack of Modesty". The article highlights the 2002 Mecca school fire in which at least 15 girls died. The cause of their deaths? Mutaween, or the Sharia Police, would not let the girls out of the burning school, nor would they let rescuers in, because the girls were not dressed modestly enough.

Aside from quoting Time magazine, that was the entirety of my post. I made no claim that burning girls for lack of modesty is enjoined on Muslims through Sharia. Not once did I say Muhammad taught this, that the Quran teaches this, or that any school of Islamic thought teaches this.

Sami Zaatari, the Muslim apologist who runs the site muslim-responses.com, has published an online response to this article. In his usual form, he took my words and interpreted them to mean whatever he wanted. In response to my article, he has said:

So here is a challenge for Nabeel:

-Bring a SINGLE Quranic verse, or authentic Hadith that says Muslims should burn immodest women

In fact I will save Nabeel some time, no such text exists, there is no such Islamic ruling, Nabeel is simply being ignorant, and is simply spreading false propaganda, simple as that.

Let us examine four problems with Sami's response:

Problem Number 1 - Did I ever claim that according to Sharia, a Muslim should burn immodest women? No! Nowhere in my article did I claim this. My article was not titled "Sharia law states women should burn for immodesty". It was "Sharia in practice: Letting Muslim girls burn for lack of modesty". Sami grossly misinterpreted my words.

As anyone with basic English interpretation skills and rudimentary honesty would conclude from the title alone, the article was not about how Sharia should be practiced, but rather Sharia in practice, and how it has resulted in the immolation of young girls. This is an undeniable fact, as undeniable as the fact that the Saudi government forgave the mutaween for their decision to let the girls die.

Problem Number 2 - Sami is wrong with an implicit fact as well. He has equated A: "letting girls burn for immodesty" to B: "burning girls for immodesty". A is a passive act, but B is a choice to kill. A and B are thus very different from each other, with B being a much worse crime. Sami claims that I declared B to be allowed in Sharia. This is an even more preposterous interpretation than problem number 1! As I said above, I was not making any statements regarding the normative application of Sharia, but beyond this, my claim was that the mutaween are guilty of A, not B! Of course, even this confusion could have been avoided if Sami had simply interpreted the title of the article accurately.

Problem Number 3 - Sami then went on to call me ignorant. Apart from being judgmental, Sami is simply wrong again. I ignored no aspect of my article, and made no uninvestigated claim.

Problem Number 4 - Finally, Sami states that I am simply spreading false propaganda. How can this be the case, when my whole article simply consisted of reporting an event which even Time Magazine reports? This is a horrible attempt at taking the focus off of the practice of Islam.

Learning Point

So what have we seen today? Sami interprets words the way he wants, blames his preposterous interpretations on the writer, and then accuses the writer of being ignorant and perpetuating lies!

The fact is, this is not a solitary occurrence. This is the modus operandi for many Muslims and their arguments. Many of the arguments against Christian apologists would easily be resolved if Muslims simply bothered to interpret the Christians accurately. If intentional, this can only be a distraction tactic; it serves no purpose in approaching the truth, and it simply confuses the readers who might be less than fully engaged. In the future, let's keep our eyes open for this method of argumentation and let's call it out for what it is: either poor interpretation skills or sheer distraction.

UN Considers Binding Resolution to Ban Criticism of Islam

Islam and Wife-Beating: Muslim Scholars Speak

According to the Qur'an, men are permitted 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 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. (Pickthall)

There are, of course, two extremes that should be avoided when we attempt to interpret this verse. On one extreme, some men may hold that they are free to beat their wives as often and as brutally as they like. This is not the case. On the other extreme, Muslim apologists often claim that Islamic wife-beatings are to be painless. This is simply absurd, given what the Muslim sources plainly declare.

In this post, we will observe the claims of Muslim scholars on the issue of wife-beating. We will then look at what some Muslim sources have to say on this issue, and why there have always been violent wife-beatings in Islam.

MUSLIM SCHOLARS ON WIFE-BEATING

This Muslim scholar tells Muslims that they shouldn't be ashamed about the Islamic practice of wife-beating. He declares that there are three types of women that a man can only live with if he carries a rod on his shoulder: (1) women who are accustomed to beating because their parents constantly beat them, (2) women who are condescending towards their husbands, and (3) women who will not obey their husbands.



According to the next Muslim scholar, the restrictions on beating one's wife are: (1) he must not do it in front of the children; (2) he must not cause bleeding, bruising, or broken bones; and (3) he should not hit her in the face.



According our next scholar, (1) a man should not beat his wife in the face, (2) he should not beat her where the beating will leave marks, (3) he should not beat her on her hands, and (4) "he should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child--smacking them right and left."



The following scholar agrees with much of the above discussion. He adds that "beatings are indispensable."



So far we can see (1) that Muslim scholars rightly acknowledge that Islam permits wife-beating, and (2) that Muslims should follow certain rules when they beat their wives.

MUSLIM SOURCES ON WIFE-BEATING

The problem I have with some of the comments made by these Muslim scholars is that I can't find much of what they say in reliable Muslim sources. Indeed, the Muslim sources often indicate a quite different position from the ones we've seen.

For instance, consider the occasion on which Surah 4:34 was revealed. According to al-Tabari:

It was said that this verse was revealed because a man hit his wife on her face, so she came to the prophet (saw). The prophet then wanted to judge in her favor. But Allah revealed {Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others}. Then the prophet called on the man and recited this verse to him and said: "I wanted one thing, but Allah wanted another."

So a man hit his wife in the face, and she went to Muhammad for justice. Muhammad was about to judge in her favor, but Allah defended the man with Surah 4:34. How, then, can Muslims say that men may not hit their wives in the face, when 4:34 was revealed to defend a man who had hit his wife in the face? (Note: There is some support in Muslim sources for the claim that men shouldn't hit their wives in the face. However, as we've seen, the evidence is far from conclusive on this point.)

It's also difficult to see how Muslims can so confidently claim that men may not leave marks when they beat their wives, especially when we read about a man leaving a mark on his wife in Sahih al-Bukhari!

Sahih al-Bukhari 5825—Narrated Ikrima: Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her. Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating. It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment. Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.” Allah's messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”

(Notice Aisha's claim that Muslim women were suffering more than pagan women.)

Even more disturbing is the fact that there are situations where a man may murder the mother of his own children!

Sunan Abu Dawud 4348— Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.

So men may rest assured that murdering one's "companion" is acceptable in certain situations (though this was his slave-girl, not his wife).

Some of the Muslim sources agree with the scholar above who said that beatings are indispensable. For example, beatings are necessary because, without them, women will become emboldened towards their husbands.

Sunan Abu Dawud 2141—Iyas b. Abd Allah b. Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Beyond this, we know that Muhammad, Abu Bakr, and Umar would not hesitate to hurt women.

Sunan Ibn Majah 1986—Ash’ath b. Qais is reported to have said, “One night Umar arranged a feast. When it was midnight, he got up and went towards his wife to beat her. I separated them both. When he went to bed, he said to me, ‘O Ash’ath, preserve from me a thing that I heard from Allah’s messenger. (These things are): A man will not be taken to task for beating his wife (for valid reasons) and do not sleep without observing witr prayer.’ I forgot the third (exhortation).”

Sahih Muslim 2127— . . . When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'Aisha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…

Sahih Muslim 3506—Jabir b. 'Abdullah reported: Abu Bakr came and sought permission to see Allah's Messenger. He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came 'Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah's Apostle sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat 'Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Kharija when she asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah's Messenger laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr then got up went to 'Aisha and slapped her on the neck, and 'Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah's Messenger which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah's Messenger for anything he does not possess. . . .

Sahih al-Bukhari 6845—Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, "You have detained the people because of your necklace." But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah's Apostle although that hit was very painful.

Putting all of this together, what do we have? The Qur'an is quite unclear as to how beatings should be performed, and most of the world's Muslims don't have copies of the necessary commentaries lying around. The result is that many Muslims are only aware of the fact that they may beat their wives, not of the fact that there are certain limitations. The result is awful. Let's consider a few examples.

WIFE-BEATING IN THE REAL WORLD

In this debate on wife-beating, a woman reports her research on wife-beating practices.



In our next video, Rania al-Baz discusses a beating her husband gave her. (Note: Her husband did not follow the advice of the scholars above.)



The husband of the twelve-year-old girl in the following video obviously doesn't follow the rules either:



Many are already familiar with the story of ten-year-old Nujood Ali, whose husband beat and raped her.



In this next video, two women discuss an instance of wife-beating, and they compare women in the West with women in the Muslim world.



I'm not sure how Muslims can offer a remotely compelling response to the facts here. In the book that would spread around the world as the heart of Islam, Allah declared that men may beat their wives. Unfortunately, he didn't clarify how this is to be done in his perfect book. Women have been suffering ever since.

In defense of Islam, here's a video by Khalid Yasin (though I wonder whether he is in touch with reality--the reality of Islamic teachings, and the reality of women in the Muslim world).



Obviously, Khalid must reject Aisha's claim from Sahih al-Bukhari: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women."

To conclude, let's see how one former Muslim woman responds to the claim that Muslim women love the treatment they receive under Islam.



(Note: There may be some important videos or texts I should add to this post. If anyone, Christian or Muslim, has anything significant to add, I'm open to suggestions.)

The FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists

Muslims often point out the fact that there have been many non-Muslim terrorists throughout history. This is entirely true. However, it's quite interesting to see how many non-Muslim terrorists are on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list. Click on the following link and start counting.

"Most Wanted Terrorists"

Pakistan on the Brink

Here's a link to an excellent video on the situation in Pakistan, where the Taliban is gaining momentum.

"Pakistan on the Brink"

Is It Safe to Drink Water Polluted by a Dead Donkey?

We're all familiar with this scientific error from Sunan Abu Dawud, which I often use in my debates:

Sunan Abu Dawud 67--I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual cloths and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.

Things get worse, however. In the following passage from Ibn Majah, we learn that it's okay to drink water with a dead donkey carcass floating in it!

Sunan Ibn Majah 520--It was narrated that Jabir bin Abdullah said: "We came to a pond in which there was the carcass of a donkey, so we refrained from using the water until the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: 'Water is not made impure by anything.' Then we drank from it and gave it to our animals to drink, and we carried some with us."

And let's not forget this gem:

Sunan Ibn Majah 521--It was narrated that Abu Umamah Al-Bahili said: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Water is not made impure by anything except that which changes its smell, taste and color.'"

This is, of course, totally false. Water can be filled with deadly germs that do not affect smell, taste, or color.

Let's conclude with a classic:

Sahih al-Bukhari 5782--Allah’s Messenger said, “If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let him dip all of it (into the vessel) and then throw it [i.e. the fly] away, for in one of its wings there is a disease and in the other there is healing (antidote for it) i.e. the treatment for that disease.”

If I were a Muslim looking for something miraculous to justify Islam, I would argue that it was a miracle that Muhammad's followers didn't all die from the germs and diseases he exposed them to with his horribly unsanitary rulings!

Which Mosque Was Built First?

According to Muhammad, the first mosque was the mosque in Mecca. Then second "mosque" was in Jerusalem. Interestingly, Muhammad believed that the two were built only forty years apart, despite his belief that the original mosque was built by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham and Ishmael. This would make the "mosque" in Jerusalem quite early indeed!

Sunan Ibn Majah 753--It was narrated that Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Which mosque was built first?' He said: 'Al-Masjid Al-Haram (in Makkah).' I said: 'Then which?' He said: 'Then Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).' I said: 'How many years between them?' He said: 'Forty years, but the whole earth is a mosque for you, so pray wherever you are when the time for prayer comes.'"

Abused Girl Returned to Her Abusive Family after Converting to Christianity

This is wild stuff. Follow the chain of events.

(1) Girl suffers abuse by her Muslim family.
(2) State places the girl in foster care.
(3) Girl converts to Christianity.
(4) State fires the foster care worker for failing to preserve the girl's religion.
(5) Girl is given back to her abusive family.

What's going on in the UK? And what's going to happen to this girl when her family finds out she converted?

The foster mother struck off for allowing a Muslim girl to convert to Christianity took the child in after she was threatened with an arranged marriage.

The woman, a devout Christian, was asked to care for the teenager after the authorities learned of her abusive family background.

Her father beat her just for chatting to boys and warned he would haul her off to Pakistan to marry against her will, a friend claimed.

But council officials were angered when the girl chose to be baptised. They insist the foster mother failed in her duty to preserve the girl's original religion. Read more.

Four out of Ten Turkish Women Are Victims of Physical Abuse by Their Husbands

ANKARA, FEBRUARY 12 - Four out of ten Turkish women are victims of physical abuse by their husbands and only a fraction report it to authorities, according to an official survey released today and published by daily Hurriyet website. The poll, conducted among 12,795 women in summer of 2008, found that 39% of those were "slapped, pushed, punched, choked, burnt or threatened or attacked with a weapon such as a knife or gun". Fifteen percent said they were victims of sexual abuse, described by the survey as being physically forced to have sex, having sex out of fear or being forced to engage in degrading or humiliating sexual acts. One in four women was injured as a result of physical or sexual violence. The poll, released by the governments office on the status of women, said that 48.5% of the victims did not tell anyone about the abuse while only 4% sought help from police and a mere one percent sought refuge in state-run shelters. Source.

Winner of C.A.I.R. Award Stabbed Wife Repeatedly before Beheading Her

This just gets sicker and sicker.

Police revealed the decapitated wife of a Muslim TV network founder in New York was stabbed several times with hunting knives and may have been alive as her killer beheaded her – and, despite the brutal slaying, her husband will only face charges of second-degree murder.

As WND previously reported, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, who has been charged with beheading his wife, Aasiya Hassan, 37, was the recipient of an award from the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations, the self-described Muslim civil rights group that boasts of its influence on U.S. government policy.

The Hassans founded Bridges TV in November 2004. They described it as a satellite news and opinion channel aimed at portraying Muslims in a positive light following the Sept. 11 attacks.

Hassan is accused of cutting off his wife's head at his Buffalo, N.Y., station Feb. 12. However, sources have now confirmed that the woman was gouged with hunting knives before she was decapitated, the Buffalo News reports. Read More.

And here's a photo of Hassan receiving an award from the Council on American-Islamic Relations:

Beheaded Muslim Woman Called a "Martyr" for Islam

Remember the Muslim woman who was recently beheaded by her husband in an honor-killing? In an extraordinarily strange turn of events, Muslim leaders are claiming that she is a martyr for Islam's image.

Buffalo News--The lives of Muzzammil and Aasiya Hassan were quite different from their public image in the local Muslim and broadcast communities.

In the public eye, they were a dynamic couple, building their — actually her — dream of a Muslim-lifestyle TV channel in the United States.

But police reports compiled for much of their marriage tell another story:

Their home life was a nightmare. Aasiya was repeatedly subjected to controlling and sometimes violent acts by her ambitious but troubled husband.

To protect herself, she went to the police in two states. Yet for years she stopped short of pressing charges — thus preserving Muzzammil’s reputation and the venture they built together.

On Feb. 6, she filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection, barring him from their home in Orchard Park. A week later, she lay dead in their television offices — stabbed and decapitated. Muzzammil was charged with her murder.

“I think of Aasiya as a martyr,” said Faizan Haq, a local professor who helped launch Bridges TV, the station in Orchard Park that the Hassans started in 2004. “She has given her life to protect the image of American Muslims. And as an American Muslim community, we owe it to her not to let this happen again.” Read More.

I'm sorry, but Muslims don't get to claim this woman as a martyr. If she's a martyr, she's a martyr for women who take a stand against their violent husbands.