Will Faisal Mostafa Be Cleared a Third Time?

A British chemistry graduate who was twice cleared of plotting terrorist attacks is being searched for by Bangladeshi security forces who claim that an orphange he founded was being used as a training camp and arms factory for Islamic militants.

Dr Faisal Mostafa ran a charity providing humanitarian aid to children and families in Bangladesh and Pakistan, even though he was twice cleared of involvement in alleged bomb-making factories and terror attacks in Britain.

Bangladeshi security forces allege that an orphanage run by Mostafa's Stockport-based charity Green Crescent was being used to train Jihadist extremists 'in line with Bin Laden'. Read More.

Taqiyya:Does Islam Promote Deception?

This post is not making a point so much as exploring an issue. When the doctrine of taqiyya is brought forth along with the appropriate verses and ahadith, an uninformed onlooker would easily conclude that deception is a part of Islam.

However, I wish for the Christians and Muslims who frequent this blog to explore this issue before I present any conclusion. Let's hear the arguments and the defenses, and let's let the Muslims defend their doctrine. If they can clarify the doctrine to be a noble one, then that would be great and this will not be an issue of division. If not, the non-Muslims will have solid reason to believe that ignoble principles are advanced by Allah.

Allow me to post the appropriate Islamic scripture without much commentary.

Verses and Ahadith

This verse implies that Muslim can be deceptive with non-Muslims, feigning friendship "by way of precuation":

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.
Surah 3:28

This hadith states that people are allowed to lie if the purpose is to make peace between people:

He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.
Sahih Bukhari 3:49:857

This hadith shows Muhammad allowing a lie to be told in order to kill an enemy:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do".
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:271

Example of Taqiyya?

Below is an investigation of an imam in Australia who attempts to deceive the police by vandalizing his own mosque, and then blaming it on someone else. Is this taqiyya? I'm not providing an answer, I'm asking you to tell me in the comments section :-)

Violence in Islam vs. Violence in Judaism and Christianity

Below is a snippet from an insightful article published a few days ago on JihadWatch which excellently explains the difference between violence in Islam and violence in Judaism/Christianity. Click the link for the whole article.

Why should Islam be the one religion always characterized as intrinsically violent, simply because its holy book and its history also contain violence? Why should non-Muslims always point to the Koran and ancient history as evidence of Islam’s violence while never looking to their own scriptures and history?

While such questions are popular, they reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and what are understood to be the immutable words of God. The fundamental error being that Judeo-Christian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theology—which commands violence. Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by God or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

Old Testament violence is an interesting case in point. Yahweh clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of God’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Old Testament is just that—history. It happened; God commanded it. But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Old Testament—commanded by God and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e., Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological, or, more specifically, doctrinal.

Christian vs. Muslim Exegesis:Examining the Crucifixion of Christ

If you have been on this site for a while, you know who Osama Abdallah is. Feel free to enter his name in the search bar at the top of this site to see some of his work.

Recently, Osama has bombarded David's and my email accounts. His latest craze? The Bible itself denies Jesus' crucifixion! He has uploaded a rather extensive article to his website defending his views (NOTE: I would link to it, but it's been strongly opined that the site has a virus on it. For the protection of this site's readers, I will not link to Osama's site).

One of Osama's last words to David and me in his email (emphasis his):

To say the least: Islam's position about Christ never got crucified remains strongly supported even in your Scriptures, or the Bible.

This brings us to a crucial difference in the average approach Muslim apologists take in exegesis versus Christian apologists. Traditionally, when a Muslim apologist wishes to make a point, he will extract references that support his view, ignore or explain away references that do not, and provide his view as the only logical view.

Take Osama for example. He has said the Bible supports Islam in saying that Jesus was not crucified. He quotes Psalm 91 where it says: "Surely he will save you... no harm will befall you... They will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone... says the Lord 'I will rescue him; I will protect him... I will deliver him and honor him.'" Thus, Osama makes his case that the Bible defends Islam.

And his case would be pretty solid, if the Bible were just the verses he quoted. However, there's more to the Bible than Osama's whims. In the Bible, Jesus says:

- "that he must be killed and on the third day raised to life" (Mt 16:21)

- that the chief priests and teachers of the law "will condemn him to death and will turn him over... to be crucified." (Mt 20:18-19)

- that the Gentiles will "mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again." (Lk 18:33)

But really, if there were ever any question of what happened to Jesus on the cross, the guards should have put the question to rest because "when they came to Jesus, they found that he was already dead" (Jn 19:33).

The Christian, on the other hand, takes all the scriptures and provides the view that is the best fit. Then he bases his theology on all his conclusions. For example, the Christian acknowledges the verses Osama has offered. He then prioritizes the verses according to ambiguity. It is incontrovertible that the Gospels teach Jesus' crucifixion and death. The verses quoted by Osama, then, must be accounted for by some other means than Osama's suggestion. This is easily achieved by attributing those verses to the everlasting protection and safety Jesus has in his resurrection. Through Jesus' resurrection, the Father "delivered him, protected him, and honored him." That is the ultimate rescue and protection. Thus, by interpreting all the evidence together, the Christian apologist arrives at an honest, fair conclusion.

So Osama, the Muslim apologist, pretends that the Bible says Jesus did not die on the cross, whereas the Christian apologist lets the Bible speak for itself.

In sum. Here is comparison of a Christian apologist's approach vs. a Muslim apologist's:

Christian: 

1 - Read the text

2 - Draw the best conclusion based primarily off of unambiguous scripture

Muslim:

1 - Determine what you'd like the text to say

2 - Find verses that support your view, even if they are ambiguous

3 - Make your conclusion as if those were the only relevant verses

4 - If need be, deny the legitimacy of all verses that contradict your point of view, especially the clear ones.

Readers, please feel free to post in the comments some prime examples of this Muslim methodology that you may have seen. If we get a good list, it will make for an impressive display when speaking about and presenting Muslim apologetics to the uninitiated.

Vilified: The Massacre that Never Happened

Remember when Muslims around the world went berserk over this massacre that never happened?

Jesus' Death by Crucifixion: A Litmus Test for Honest Investigation

Jesus' death by crucifixion is as historically certain as anything can be. This is a fact noted by virtually all non-Muslim scholars, including atheists and agnostics. Here's what some of them have to say:

“Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”  Gert Lüdemann  

“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”  J.D. Crossan 

“The passion of Jesus is part of history.”  Geza Vermes

Jesus’ death by crucifixion is “historically certain” Pinchas Lapide 

“The single most solid fact about Jesus’ life is his death: he was executed by the Roman prefect Pilate, on or around Passover, in the manner Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists, namely, crucifixion.”  Paula Fredriksen

“The support for the mode of his death, its agents, and perhaps its co-agents, is overwhelming: Jesus faced a trial before his death, was condemned, and was executed by crucifixion” L.T. Johnson

“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Ponitus Pilate.” Bart Ehrman

Muslims, however, believe exactly the opposite. The Qur'an says:

"That they said (in boast), 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah'; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not." 4:157

So history tells us one thing, and the Qur'an tells us something entirely different. (It's apt to note the irony here: the Qur'an calls those who are using evidence 'full of doubts' and following 'conjecture'!)

Now, all Muslims will argue that the Qur'an is correct. In light of the evidence, this requires one of two defenses. They must either say: 1-There is not enough evidence in history to conclude that Jesus died on the cross; or 2-History is wrong and the Qur'an is right. 

We have seen that response number 1 is wrong; the proof for Jesus' death by crucifixion is overwhelming! But if a Muslim uses response number 2, he is admitting that the Qur'an goes against the facts. That doesn't automatically mean the Qur'an is wrong, it just puts a heavy burden of proof upon the Qur'an to show itself as reliable by some other means.

So, here's your litmus test to see if you're dialoguing with an honest Muslim investigator.

1 - Provide the evidence for Jesus' death, including the scholarly consensus.

2 - Show your Muslim friend that the Qur'an goes against all the evidence.

3 - See how the Muslim resolves this predicament.

If your Muslim friend says "Well no matter what you say, there's just not enough evidence here" then be assured that the person with whom you are dialoguing is not open to an honest investigation (at least not vocally). If the Muslims responds with "You're right, all of history is against the Qur'an, but the Qur'an is more trustworthy than all of history", you have good reason to believe that you're dealing with an honest investigator.

Sami Zaatari vs. James White: "Jesus: Divine Son of God or Prophet of Allah?"

This debate, as expected, was pretty one-sided. Sam Shamoun provides some interesting commentary here.

Censoring the Christian Debater

Here's an interesting post by Keith Truth on his PalTalk debate with Sami Zaatari. Notice the deception and desperation on the part of Muslims. If a Christian tried a stunt like this, Christians would rebuke him. In the Muslim world, however, such tactics are perfectly acceptable. Muslims never cease to amaze me.

Muhammad on the Prayer-Stoppers: Demonic Dogs, Women, and Donkeys

This is a familiar hadith, but Tirmidhi's version is interesting because of the additional commentary. Notice that when the early Muslims heard Muhammad's teaching on broken prayer, the only question that came to their minds was: "Why don't other dogs sever the prayer the way women and donkeys do? Why only the black dogs?" Muhammad's response was that only black dogs break prayers (the way women and donkeys do), since black dogs are demonic. In other words, most dogs aren't bad enough to sever prayers. Only demonic dogs, women, and donkeys break a prayer.

Jami At-Tirmidhi 338--Abu Dharr said that Allah's Messenger said: "When a man performs Salat, and there is nothing in front of him like the post of a saddle, or a camel saddle, then his Salat is severed by (passing of) a black dog, a woman, and a donkey." It was said to Abu Dharr: "What is the problem with the black dog rather than the red or white one?" He said: "O my nephew! I asked Allah's Messenger just as you have asked me. He said: 'The black dog is a Shaitan (devil).'"

I couldn't invent stuff like this if I tried.

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