Charges Dropped against Muslims Who Raped 13-Year-Old Christian

ISTANBUL, April 10 (Compass Direct News) – Police have declared three Pakistani men innocent of raping a 13-year-old Christian girl despite eye witness accounts and medical evidence indicating their guilt. At a hearing in Nankana Sahib district court on April 3, police from the Pakistani town of Sangla Hill, 64 miles from Lahore, cleared 40-year-old Mohammed Shahbaz, 30-year-old Waqas Sadiq and 25-year-old Yousaf Sadiq of accusations of raping and threatening Ambreen Masih. Shahbaz was the only suspect to attend the hearing, which was initially called to discuss terms of his pre-arrest bail. But Judge Ijaz Hussan Awan said he couldn’t set terms for bail if police didn’t want to arrest or detain him. “In Pakistan it has always been like this – the wealthy person can approach the police and change the course of an investigation,” said prosecuting attorney Akbar Durrani. “Regarding Christians, they cannot put any pressure on the police for a fair investigation.” SOURCE.

Marital Rape in Afghanistan

KABUL - A key backer of an Afghan law that critics say legalizes marital rape and rolls back women's rights rejected an international outcry as foreign meddling on Saturday and insisted the law offers women many protections.

The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse, and regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.

"It is essential for the woman to submit to the man's sexual desire," the law says. READ MORE.

Another Quranic Deficiency Mentioned in Bukhari

For those of you who have been following this blog since the end of last year, you may have noticed that the topic of Qur'anic preservation has been of utmost interest to me. As a Muslim, I had been utterly convinced that the Qur'an today is exactly the words that Muhammad had received from Allah. And, at least beyond the source of the words, I thought that the evidence was so strong that no one would even consider disagreeing.

Then I studied. I heard about Ibn Masud, Ubay ibn Kab, the Uthmanic edition, Kitab al-Masahif, Aisha's goat, etc. All of that stuff has been outlined already on this website. Since my Muslim days, I've done a complete 180 on my position of Qur'anic textual preservation. I believe that there is no possible way to be confident that these are the words Muhammad told the scribes to write. I believe that it is highly likely that much of it is well preserved, but I think it is even more likely that some parts are lost and there's no reason to think that today's Qur'an has even the correct number of surahs, let alone the exact words it should.

Not too much of the information we have drawn from concerning Quranic preservation has come from Bukhari. The verse outlining the top Qur'an scholars does, the burning of the manuscripts does, and the verse of rajm does. Most of our other evidences are from the rest of the sahih sitah. But we have been informed of another one from Sahih Bukhari. It reads:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: 'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever."  Sahih Bukhari, Vol 6, Book 527

Here we see another indication that one of Muhammad's top teachers of the Qur'an, one of the ones Muhammad himself said we should turn to if we are to learn the Qur'an, says that he heard Muhammad reveal a verse that others have left out of the Qur'an.

Now we can look at this one of two ways:

1. Ubay was right about this verse, and it was left out of the Qur'an mistakenly
2. Ubay was wrong about this verse, and Muhammad did a poor job picking his top teachers (especially if, as Muslims usually purport, there were many huffaz at that time who could have corrected his false understanding)

So it seems we have a dilemma. Either the Qur'an is incorrect for sure, or Muhammad did a poor job choosing his top teachers and there's no way of knowing how correct the Qur'an is. In fact, this has been the conclusion here for months, this last evidence only continues to strengthen our conclusion.

What is not an option? The perfect preservation of the Qur'an.

Frivolous Post

Hey everyone - guess what? Today is David's birthday! He's 33! Let's all wish him a happy birthday, before he deletes this post :-)

Debates in May

Hello everyone! I'm back from my overseas medical missions trips, and it's time for some good debatin'!

It seems that there may be a series of debates happening in May here in Virginia. This is far from solidified, but David mentioned he thinks we should have some, and I got a call from California today requesting that we hold a couple as well.

My primary question for you: which topics about Islam should be debated? I'm still looking forward to debating Quranic textual integrity - I haven't seen one on that topic yet.

My secondary question for you: which topics about Christianity should be debated?

We'll try to get recordings and put them up on youtube and on our acts17 page, so everyone will be able to see them. Let us know - your say so matters and this is the time to give us requests!

Muslim Scientists Debate whether the Earth Is Flat and whether the Sun Is Smaller than the Earth

Notice which Muslim scientist is appealing to the Qur'an for support.

Sami Zaatari Exposed?

Someone put together a YouTube page on Sami Zaatari here (Ben Malik posted the link in the comments section of Sami's debate with James). My questions are as follows:

(1) Are the emails in the video really from Sami, or is this just deception (i.e. is someone making things up to attack Sami)?

(2) If the emails are from Sami, were they from several years ago or were they recent? (I can hardly hold them against him if they were written when he was a teenager.)

The answers to these questions will certainly affect my view of the relevance of these videos. I think we should all wait to hear from Sami before we make any final judgments.

*****UPDATE***** The answers to questions (1) and (2) above are "Yes, the emails were from Sami," and "They are recent," respectively. However, according to Sami, the videos hardly present an accurate picture of events. A fuller account may be read in the comments section. It seems that an atheist was threatening Sami and his family, and that Sami simply lost his temper. The general consensus among readers here is that we won't hold this temporary outburst against Sami. I would add this: If anyone sees these videos floating around on other sites, please link to this post so that both sides of the story are heard.

*****2ND UPDATE***** Some have asked Sami to provide evidence for his claims. He sent me this picture, which shows that someone told him, on March 22nd, that his personal information had been posted on the internet.


*****3RD UPDATE***** Sami has posted an apology video, offering an "olive branch" to Sami-Z-Exposed. I'm glad we've been able to help take care of this situation rather quickly here on Answering Muslims, and I hope that everyone will accept Sami's apology.

A Two-Year-Old Girl Answers Questions about Islam

This little girl is so intelligent, it should make Muslims question Muhammad's teaching that women are intellectually deficient. (Pay attention to her quick answers concerning Jews and Christians.)

Fatima's Story

This is a moving video:

"I always thought that my Muslim family and my Muslim country will protect me as a woman. I was wrong. Instead, they chose to protect my rapist, in the name of family honor." Watch the program.

*****UPDATE***** Thanks to Miku for giving us the link to the entire program here (in case anyone is wondering how the spread of Islam will affect the world, and in case our Muslim friends tell us that this has nothing to do with Islam or Sharia Law.)

William Lane Craig vs. Shabir Ally: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"

Here's a video of William Lane Craig's recent debate with Shabir Ally at McGill University.

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.