PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Islamic Slave Trade: The Untold Story
Has anyone noticed that Christians ultimately draw attention to the misdeeds of misled Christians in the past, so that we can deal with them and not repeat them, while Muslims always manage to rewrite history in order to cover up their misdeeds?
The following documentary is in German, but there are English subtitles. (I'm hoping Shadid Lewis stops by to comment.)
PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
The following documentary is in German, but there are English subtitles. (I'm hoping Shadid Lewis stops by to comment.)
PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Geert Wilders Said it Best
From Geert Wilders on October 16th, 2009:
I have a problem with the Islamization of our societies. I have nothing against people, not individuals, not groups. I have nothing against Muslims. I know the majority of Muslims in our society are law abiding people, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have a problem with the Islamic ideology, the Islamic culture, because I believe the more Islam we get in our free societies, the less freedom we will get. And I want to fight for what the Muslims call “kafirs”, all those non-Muslims, all those women, all those apostates, all those renegades, all those homosexuals that will pay a high price when Islam would become more dominant in our society.
A Reply to Yahya Snow's Comments on John 1:19-21 - Part One
In an article found here and here, an upstart Muslim apologist has attempted to write a refutation to brother Sam Shamoun’s short and extemporaneous but nonetheless devastating critique on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network (hereafter ABN) of the ill-conceived notion that John 1:19-21 has something to do with Muhammad (See here). In order to free Sam up for more pressing matters, the present writer has taken in hand to say something of what Sam himself would have said by way of response, especially if this dawagandist had called in to the broadcast to speak with Sam directly, something he was invited to do, but for some reason – no doubt a prudent one, at least when judged from the vantage point of the all too predictable outcome of such an exchange – declined. (In a future post, David will be providing some comments from Sam.)
************
With respect to Sam’s case on John 1, Yahya grants that it may have sounded pretty convincing to many people; yet, he says, with a little analysis it turns out to be full of holes. This means that if Yahya’s analysis doesn’t uncover these holes, then Sam’s response remains as it initially appeared: convincing.
In my estimation, Yahya’s refutation amounts to little more than a snow job (pun intended), an attempt to miss the obvious and abet others in doing the same. Here are my initial observations:
1. Yahya cites two examples of Muslim apologists who argue (so he says) from John 1 that Muhammad is “the Prophet”: 1) Jamal Badawi, in his pamphlet/paper “Muhammad in the Bible”; and 2) Zakir Naik, in his paper “Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.” However, the former never offers any argument for seeing the passage as a reference to Muhammad, and the latter never even so much as cites the passage. Moreover, Sam responded to Badawi’s paper long ago, “Answering Dr. Jamal Badawi: Muhammad in the Bible,” and, though Naik’s article hardly merits refutation, I’m sure if Yahya asks nicely, Sam would refute it as well. (Another response to Badawi, written by Samuel Green, can be found here.)
2. The above is most unfortunate, for with the exception of referring to the fanciful story that Muhammad miraculously fed his followers – obviously an embellished account by Muhammad’s overzealous followers to try and make him look more like Moses and Jesus – which contradicts the Qur’an (S. 28:48), Yahya completely avoids trying to personally prove that Muhammad is “the Prophet.”
3. Yahya also offers no positive evidence that the Prophet was predicted or even expected by the Jews to be a non-Israelite, and much less that the Jews expected the Prophet to be an Arab. Instead, Yahya contents himself with arguing that the evidence Sam provided does not prove that the Jews believed he was going to be an Israelite. (We will see)
4. The only thing Yahya really ends up trying to prove in his paper is the (relatively) uninteresting thesis that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people. But this, let it be remembered, and as Yahya grants at the end of his paper, is still a long ways off from proving that Muhammad was the prophet or even a prophet, a thesis Yahya wisely aborted anyway.
5. When it comes to the question of what the Jews believed about “the Prophet,” Yahya accuses Sam of reading his bias into the text, for nowhere in John 1 does it say that they believed “the Prophet” was going to be an Israelite. But Sam was talking about what the Jews assumed by their question, not what they said.
The salient facts that it was a delegation of Priests and Levites, i.e. Jews, who were sent by the Sanhedrin, i.e. Jews, to question John, a Jew, whether he was the Prophet promised to Israel, a nation of Jews, by Moses, a Jew, doesn’t seem to have affected Yahya very much. But if Sam’s view that the Jews assumed that the Prophet would be a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that they were questioning John the Baptist, is a case of reading his bias into the text, then what should we call it in Yahya’s case since he somehow sees a turban where everyone else can only see Yamakas?
(Nota Bene: It is important to keep in mind that Sam’s argument at this point was not that the prophet would be an Israelite simply because the Jews thought so; rather, he argued that if, as Muslims must concede, the Jews were mistaken in assuming that the prophet would be an Israelite, then Muslims also have to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews could have been wrong in drawing a distinction between “the Christ” and “the Prophet.”)
6. Since John (the Baptist) does not question or challenge the assumption of the Jews that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people – something easily accounted for by the fact that John is purposely being brief and dismissive in regard to himself, since his goal is to point people to the Messiah – Yahya says it suggests that John was aware of the distinction they drew and agreed with it. There are several responses to this:
a. Just because a person answers someone on their own terms, doesn’t mean they agree with their underlying assumptions. If it did, then this would backfire on Yahya; after all, it would mean that John also held the Jews’ assumption that “the Prophet” would be an Israelite. (See point #5)
b. If directly answering a person’s comments or questions without challenging all of their underlying assumptions is tantamount to agreeing with them, then it would also mean that Yahya accepts any assumption of Sam’s that he chose not to call into question; for example, that the Torah that we have was written by Moses.
c. Rather than seeing John’s terse replies as an indication that he agreed with the Jews, it can actually be argued that John answers “no, no and no” to their questions precisely because of their false assumptions.
7. By a happy “coincidence,” what Yahya is too blind to see, but prefers to write off as bias on Sam’s part, just happens to be exactly what we know from the historical record:
a) Not only do some ancient Jewish sources identify the Christ with the Prophet, but we have no evidence of any Jew of the time period who was expecting the Prophet to be a non-Jew or Arab.
b. In addition, even the Samaritans, according to authorities such as Grimm (Clavis N. T., p. 99) and Edersheim (LTJM, p. 278), believed the Christ and the Prophet to be designations that refer to one and the same person, and, therefore, to an Israelite.
c. In fact, the Jews of Muhammad’s time weren’t expecting a prophet from among the Arabs or pagans either; instead, they expected a prophet who would come to them and who would aid them against the disbelieving Arabs:
************
With respect to Sam’s case on John 1, Yahya grants that it may have sounded pretty convincing to many people; yet, he says, with a little analysis it turns out to be full of holes. This means that if Yahya’s analysis doesn’t uncover these holes, then Sam’s response remains as it initially appeared: convincing.
In my estimation, Yahya’s refutation amounts to little more than a snow job (pun intended), an attempt to miss the obvious and abet others in doing the same. Here are my initial observations:
1. Yahya cites two examples of Muslim apologists who argue (so he says) from John 1 that Muhammad is “the Prophet”: 1) Jamal Badawi, in his pamphlet/paper “Muhammad in the Bible”; and 2) Zakir Naik, in his paper “Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.” However, the former never offers any argument for seeing the passage as a reference to Muhammad, and the latter never even so much as cites the passage. Moreover, Sam responded to Badawi’s paper long ago, “Answering Dr. Jamal Badawi: Muhammad in the Bible,” and, though Naik’s article hardly merits refutation, I’m sure if Yahya asks nicely, Sam would refute it as well. (Another response to Badawi, written by Samuel Green, can be found here.)
2. The above is most unfortunate, for with the exception of referring to the fanciful story that Muhammad miraculously fed his followers – obviously an embellished account by Muhammad’s overzealous followers to try and make him look more like Moses and Jesus – which contradicts the Qur’an (S. 28:48), Yahya completely avoids trying to personally prove that Muhammad is “the Prophet.”
3. Yahya also offers no positive evidence that the Prophet was predicted or even expected by the Jews to be a non-Israelite, and much less that the Jews expected the Prophet to be an Arab. Instead, Yahya contents himself with arguing that the evidence Sam provided does not prove that the Jews believed he was going to be an Israelite. (We will see)
4. The only thing Yahya really ends up trying to prove in his paper is the (relatively) uninteresting thesis that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people. But this, let it be remembered, and as Yahya grants at the end of his paper, is still a long ways off from proving that Muhammad was the prophet or even a prophet, a thesis Yahya wisely aborted anyway.
5. When it comes to the question of what the Jews believed about “the Prophet,” Yahya accuses Sam of reading his bias into the text, for nowhere in John 1 does it say that they believed “the Prophet” was going to be an Israelite. But Sam was talking about what the Jews assumed by their question, not what they said.
The salient facts that it was a delegation of Priests and Levites, i.e. Jews, who were sent by the Sanhedrin, i.e. Jews, to question John, a Jew, whether he was the Prophet promised to Israel, a nation of Jews, by Moses, a Jew, doesn’t seem to have affected Yahya very much. But if Sam’s view that the Jews assumed that the Prophet would be a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that they were questioning John the Baptist, is a case of reading his bias into the text, then what should we call it in Yahya’s case since he somehow sees a turban where everyone else can only see Yamakas?
(Nota Bene: It is important to keep in mind that Sam’s argument at this point was not that the prophet would be an Israelite simply because the Jews thought so; rather, he argued that if, as Muslims must concede, the Jews were mistaken in assuming that the prophet would be an Israelite, then Muslims also have to grant, at least in principle, that the Jews could have been wrong in drawing a distinction between “the Christ” and “the Prophet.”)
6. Since John (the Baptist) does not question or challenge the assumption of the Jews that the Christ and the Prophet are two different people – something easily accounted for by the fact that John is purposely being brief and dismissive in regard to himself, since his goal is to point people to the Messiah – Yahya says it suggests that John was aware of the distinction they drew and agreed with it. There are several responses to this:
a. Just because a person answers someone on their own terms, doesn’t mean they agree with their underlying assumptions. If it did, then this would backfire on Yahya; after all, it would mean that John also held the Jews’ assumption that “the Prophet” would be an Israelite. (See point #5)
b. If directly answering a person’s comments or questions without challenging all of their underlying assumptions is tantamount to agreeing with them, then it would also mean that Yahya accepts any assumption of Sam’s that he chose not to call into question; for example, that the Torah that we have was written by Moses.
c. Rather than seeing John’s terse replies as an indication that he agreed with the Jews, it can actually be argued that John answers “no, no and no” to their questions precisely because of their false assumptions.
7. By a happy “coincidence,” what Yahya is too blind to see, but prefers to write off as bias on Sam’s part, just happens to be exactly what we know from the historical record:
a) Not only do some ancient Jewish sources identify the Christ with the Prophet, but we have no evidence of any Jew of the time period who was expecting the Prophet to be a non-Jew or Arab.
b. In addition, even the Samaritans, according to authorities such as Grimm (Clavis N. T., p. 99) and Edersheim (LTJM, p. 278), believed the Christ and the Prophet to be designations that refer to one and the same person, and, therefore, to an Israelite.
c. In fact, the Jews of Muhammad’s time weren’t expecting a prophet from among the Arabs or pagans either; instead, they expected a prophet who would come to them and who would aid them against the disbelieving Arabs:
Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me that some of his tribesmen said: ‘What induced us to accept Islam, apart from God’s mercy and guidance, was what we used to hear the Jews say. We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were people of the scriptures with knowledge which we did not possess. There was continual enmity between us, and when we got the better of them and excited their hate, they said, “The time of a prophet who is to be sent has now come. We will kill you with his aid as Ad and Iram perished.” We often used to hear them say this. When God sent His apostle we accepted him when he called us to God and we realized what their threat meant and joined him before them. We believed in him but they denied him…. (Sirat, p. 93)
Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me on the authority of some of the shaykhs of his tribe that they said that when the apostle met them he learned by inquiry that they were of the Khazraj and allies of the Jews. He invited them to sit with him and expounded to them Islam and recited the Quran to them. Now God had prepared the way for Islam in that they lived side by side with the Jews who were people of the scriptures and knowledge, while they themselves were polytheists and idolaters. They had often raided them in their district whenever bad feelings arose the Jews used to say to them, ‘A prophet will be sent soon. His day is at hand. We shall follow him and kill you by his aid as ‘Ad and Iram perished. So when they heard the apostle’s message they said one to another: This is the very prophet of whom the Jews warned us. Don’t let them get to him before us….(Sirat, p. 198)
According to what I heard from ‘Ikrima, freedman of Ibn ‘Abbas or from Sa’id b. Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbas, the Jews used to hope that the apostle would be a help to them against Aus and Khazraj before his mission began; and when God sent him from among the Arabs they disbelieved in him and contradicted what they had formerly said about him. Mu’adh b. Jabal and Bishr b. al-Bara b. Ma’rur brother of the B. Salama said to them: ‘O Jews, fear God and become Muslims, for you used to hope for Muhammad’s help against us when we were polytheists and to tell us that he would be sent and describe him to us.’ Salam b. Mishkam, one of B. al-Nadir, said, ‘He has not brought us anything we recognize and he is not the one we spoke of to you.’ (Sirat, p. 257)
….before this Messenger came to them, they used to ask Allah to aid them by his arrival, against their polytheistic enemies in war. They used to say to the polytheists, “A Prophet shall be sent just before the end of this world and we, along with him, shall exterminate you, just as the nations of ‘Ad and Iram were exterminated.” Also, Muhammad bin Ishaq narrated that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “The Jews used to invoke Allah (for the coming of Muhammad) in order to gain victory over the Aws and Khazraj, before the Prophet was sent. When Allah sent him to the Arabs, they rejected him and denied what they used to say about him. Hence, Mu‘adh bin Jabal and Bishr bin Al-Bara’ bin Ma‘rur, from Bani Salamah, said to them, ‘O Jews! Fear Allah and embrace Islam. You used to invoke Allah for the coming of Muhammad and when we were still disbelievers and you used to tell us that he would come and describe him to us,’ Salam bin Mushkim from Bani Nadir replied, ‘He did not bring anything that we recognize. He is not the Prophet we told you about….Abu Al-‘Aliyah aid, “the Jews used to ask Allah to send Muhammad so that they would gain victory over the Arab disbelievers. They used to say, ‘O Allah! Send the Prophet that we read about – in the Tawrah – so that we can torment and kill the disbelievers alongside him.’ When Allah sent Muhammad and they saw that he was not one of them, they rejected him and envied the Arabs, even though they knew that he was the Messenger of Allah. (Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Abridged, Vol. 1, p. 292-293)(For part two, click here)
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Great Britain Defends Free Speech and Admits Geert Wilders!
Things have been looking bloody awful in the U.K. over the past few years. It's as if Great Britain is rolling over and playing dead as Muslims attempt to convert the country to an Islamic Republic. But there's just been an amazing sign of life. Several months ago, leaders refused to allow Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to so much as enter the country (after all, we can't have anyone speaking freely against Islam here in the West).
That decision has been overturned, however, and Wilders returned to Britain to proclaim that Islam is violent, intolerant, and a threat to free speech. Predictably, Muslims responded to Wilders's charges by calling for his death and demanding the implementation of Sharia. Doesn't anybody bother to tell Muslims that they're actually helping Wilders when they respond with threats? Wilders's skyrocketing popularity can only be a sign that people are catching on. The conversation over the past few years seems to have gone something like this:
WILDERS: Islam is violent and intolerant.
PUBLIC: Nonsense. Islam is peaceful and loving, just like Christianity. Our Muslim friends told us so.
MUSLIMS: Death to Wilders! Down with the West!
WILDERS: You see, I told you that Islam is violent and intolerant.
PUBLIC: Umm, we're not quite sure we agree with you yet.
MUSLIMS: Off with his head! Anyone who insults Muhammad must die according to Islam! Freedom go to hell!
WILDERS: When are people going to listen to me when I say that Islam is violent and intolerant.
PUBLIC: Hmmm. You may have a point.
MUSLIMS: How dare he say that Islam is violent! Let him face us so we can murder him in the streets like Theo Van Gogh!
WILDERS AT PRESS CONFERENCE
MUSLIMS RESPOND (Hey! Didn't anyone tell these guys that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the death penalty is only supposed to be carried out in Muslim countries?)
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Muslim Apologist Declares: "There is no minimum age for sex in Islam"
In the comments section of a previous post on Muhammad and Aisha, Osama Abdallah offers several criteria for a male or female Muslim to get married. His conclusion, however, is startling:
Osama rightly points out (as Surah 65:4 proclaims), that Muslim men are free to have sex with girls who haven't reached puberty, so long as certain other conditions obtain. According to Osama, those conditions are as follows:
Well, I have a challenge for Osama and other Muslims who claim that they want to defend Muhammad, since I don't believe they're really willing to defend him. Here's the question for them, and I hope they will respond clearly and honestly.
There's the challenge. Now let's see who's really willing to stand up for Muhammad.
"So again, there is no number of minimum age in Islam, nor is the female having her first period a condition."
Osama rightly points out (as Surah 65:4 proclaims), that Muslim men are free to have sex with girls who haven't reached puberty, so long as certain other conditions obtain. According to Osama, those conditions are as follows:
1- The person "balagha ashudduh" has reached the age of physical strength. This obviously varies from person to person. A 9 or 10-year old girl might be ready for marriage, while a 14-year old might not.
2- The person (male and female) is not "tifl" (child). Again, this is more of a mental condition and it too varies from person to person.
3- The females have become "FATAYA" (young ladies or young females or young teenage females, or young women). So a female who is still a child and not a fatah (singlular of fataya) is not permitted to get married.
4- The males have reached the age of "hulum". Hulum means had an ejaculation of semen either while awake or during sleep. Boys before this stage are also not permitted to get married, in Islam.
Well, I have a challenge for Osama and other Muslims who claim that they want to defend Muhammad, since I don't believe they're really willing to defend him. Here's the question for them, and I hope they will respond clearly and honestly.
QUESTION FOR MUSLIM MEN: SUPPOSE YOU LIVED IN A COUNTRY WITH SHARIA-COMPLIANT MARRIAGE LAWS. FURTHER, IF YOU'RE ALREADY MARRIED, PRETEND FOR A MOMENT THAT YOU'RE NOT. IF YOU WERE SEEKING A MARRIAGE PARTNER, AND A SUITABLE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE PARENTS OF A NINE-YEAR-OLD GIRL COULD BE MADE, AND THE GIRL WAS INTELLIGENT AND ABLE TO DO HOUSEHOLD CHORES, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MARRY HER AND HAVE SEX WITH HER?
There's the challenge. Now let's see who's really willing to stand up for Muhammad.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Muhammad and Aisha
A Muslim caller argues that when a girl gets her first period, God has given a sign that it's okay to have sex with her. Sam and I respond.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Rifqa Bary--Live Blogging of Today's Hearing
*****UPDATE***** In an interesting turn of events, it seems that the Barys are in the country illegally, and that they will have to be deported once the documentation is provided in court. Rifqa will most likely be able to apply for asylum. Read about Mr. Bary's illegal status here.
2:00pm - People are arriving for hearing for teenage runaway who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled her Ohio home for the safety of some Orlando church leaders. Today, the judge here and one in Ohio will hold a conference call to discuss how to proceed. Rifa Bary wants to stay in Florida, fearing for her personal safety. Her parents deny her claims that she will be the victim of an honor killing for leaving her family's faith. They say he is welcome to practice the religion of her choosing under their roof.
2:38pm - Overflow courtroom is almost full of Rifqa's supporters. Some are wearing t-shirts bearing Bible scripture. A small group held a short prayer circle in the lobby beforehand. Attorneys are not yet seated. Hearing will a few minutes late, it appears.
2:43pm - Rifqa and her attorney have arrived in court. She is wearing a black and white dress and appears calm. She is smiling and making small talk with Christa Bartholomew, her guardian at litem, or legal guardian assigned to this case. Her demeanor in the past has been much more subdued.
2:47 pm - judge learns mediation between Rifqa and her parents did not reach an agreement between parties.
2:50 pm - Jurisdiction is being talked about now. The courts in Orange County and Franklin County, Ohio are connected via a conference call.
2:55 pm - Ohio juvenile court judge Elizabeth Gill said she is willing to take on the case. Ohio DCF said Rifqa would be placed in a foster home, not returned to her parents.
3:00 pm - Rifq'a attorney John Stemberger is objecting to the case being turned over to Ohio. However, her guardian ad litem said Ohio is the proper place. She wants Rifqa's move back to Ohio to be "transitional," including a psychological screening. Bartholomew said "it's vital to protect this child from any additional emotional harm."
3:03 pm - Bartholomew said the parents should be held in contempt of court for not producing documents that show Rifqa is in the U.S. legally. The Bary family emigrated from Sri Lanka when she was much younger. "We don't need to move her just for the sake of moving her."
3:05 pm - Attorney Shayan Elahi said the parents have provided all the documents they have.
3:06 pm - Judge Daniel Dawson said he is concerned that months into this matter, this issue has not yet been resolved. "They have been trying to hold my clients in contempt for months, argued Elahi, calling the GAO 'abrasive.' " Dawson said he doesn't care about the motives of the GAO, but wants the papers turned over to the court.
3:09 pm - Judge Dawson plans to enforce his order for the passport and related papers, even if the case is moved to Ohio.
3:10 pm - "We still don't have a complete copy of (Rifqa's) passport," said Bartholomew. "I am very alarmed that it hasn' been provided," she added. She said she has learned there are more documents being withheld.
3:18 pm - Attorneys are talking about arrangements for a psychological evaluation and counseling. She is to see a local psychologist on Friday morning.
3:21 pm - Elahi said he suspects "a ploy" by Rifqa's legal representatives to delay her moving back home to Franklin County, Ohio.
3:22 pm - Stemberger suggested that Ohio court be told about the local psychologist, to ease their concerns that she is getting the best of care.
3:23 pm - Judge Dawson asked Ohio officials if they can schedule her evaluation soon after her arrival there. They say it could be done within 30 days. Her parents would also undergo evaluations.
3:25 pm - A report could be delivered within a couple of weeks, they said.
3:27 pm - Rifqa has been looking down for most of the hearing, writing into a tablet. She is paying attention to the comments being made in court.
3:29 pm - Dawson: The court is going to agree with Ohio that they have jurisdiction. Florida retains emergency jurisdiction.
3:35 pm - DCF said Rifqa will be escorted back to Ohio and turned over to Franklin County Children's Servies.
3:36 pm - Stemberger said it's important that her legal status be settled quickly. He said her parents have threatened to have her sent back to Sri Lanka "where mercy killings are practiced."
3:37 pm - Attorney Roger Weedem, who represents Rifqa's mother here, said Ohio is capable of handling immigration issues.
3:38 pm - Judge Dawson said he still concerned about this issue. "The court would feel lot better if these documents were here, before it gives up jurisdiction."
3:39 pm - Bartholomew said Rifqa Bary runs the risk of deportation, if takes public transportation anywhere in this country.
3:40 pm - Elahi is getting argumentative with the judge who insists on getting the immigration paperwork. "You and your client didn't supply it. I want it before this child leaves Florida," said Dawson.
3:41 pm - Elahi is accusing Rifqa's attorney is "religious predatory practices" and might take her someplace into hiding.
3:42 pm - Dawson said it is the parents' fault for not getting the immigration documentation. He doesn't plan to release her until he sees it.
3:46 pm - Ohio attorneys for Bary's parents are arguing for her quick transfer there. Ohio Judge Gill said she agreed with Judge Dawson that immigration papers need to be provided immediately, before the teen is sent back to Ohio.
3:54 pm - Bartholomew said she has received copies of only two pages of Rifqa's mother's passport. She wants the entire document.
3:55 pm - Dawson said he is troubled that the parents seem not to know what the court demands.
3:57 pm - Dawson set an administrative hearing on October 23rd. He wants to know by then that the immigration papers have been supplied, as he ordered in each of the three hearings he had held for the teenager's status. Source.
2:00pm - People are arriving for hearing for teenage runaway who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled her Ohio home for the safety of some Orlando church leaders. Today, the judge here and one in Ohio will hold a conference call to discuss how to proceed. Rifa Bary wants to stay in Florida, fearing for her personal safety. Her parents deny her claims that she will be the victim of an honor killing for leaving her family's faith. They say he is welcome to practice the religion of her choosing under their roof.
2:38pm - Overflow courtroom is almost full of Rifqa's supporters. Some are wearing t-shirts bearing Bible scripture. A small group held a short prayer circle in the lobby beforehand. Attorneys are not yet seated. Hearing will a few minutes late, it appears.
2:43pm - Rifqa and her attorney have arrived in court. She is wearing a black and white dress and appears calm. She is smiling and making small talk with Christa Bartholomew, her guardian at litem, or legal guardian assigned to this case. Her demeanor in the past has been much more subdued.
2:47 pm - judge learns mediation between Rifqa and her parents did not reach an agreement between parties.
2:50 pm - Jurisdiction is being talked about now. The courts in Orange County and Franklin County, Ohio are connected via a conference call.
2:55 pm - Ohio juvenile court judge Elizabeth Gill said she is willing to take on the case. Ohio DCF said Rifqa would be placed in a foster home, not returned to her parents.
3:00 pm - Rifq'a attorney John Stemberger is objecting to the case being turned over to Ohio. However, her guardian ad litem said Ohio is the proper place. She wants Rifqa's move back to Ohio to be "transitional," including a psychological screening. Bartholomew said "it's vital to protect this child from any additional emotional harm."
3:03 pm - Bartholomew said the parents should be held in contempt of court for not producing documents that show Rifqa is in the U.S. legally. The Bary family emigrated from Sri Lanka when she was much younger. "We don't need to move her just for the sake of moving her."
3:05 pm - Attorney Shayan Elahi said the parents have provided all the documents they have.
3:06 pm - Judge Daniel Dawson said he is concerned that months into this matter, this issue has not yet been resolved. "They have been trying to hold my clients in contempt for months, argued Elahi, calling the GAO 'abrasive.' " Dawson said he doesn't care about the motives of the GAO, but wants the papers turned over to the court.
3:09 pm - Judge Dawson plans to enforce his order for the passport and related papers, even if the case is moved to Ohio.
3:10 pm - "We still don't have a complete copy of (Rifqa's) passport," said Bartholomew. "I am very alarmed that it hasn' been provided," she added. She said she has learned there are more documents being withheld.
3:18 pm - Attorneys are talking about arrangements for a psychological evaluation and counseling. She is to see a local psychologist on Friday morning.
3:21 pm - Elahi said he suspects "a ploy" by Rifqa's legal representatives to delay her moving back home to Franklin County, Ohio.
3:22 pm - Stemberger suggested that Ohio court be told about the local psychologist, to ease their concerns that she is getting the best of care.
3:23 pm - Judge Dawson asked Ohio officials if they can schedule her evaluation soon after her arrival there. They say it could be done within 30 days. Her parents would also undergo evaluations.
3:25 pm - A report could be delivered within a couple of weeks, they said.
3:27 pm - Rifqa has been looking down for most of the hearing, writing into a tablet. She is paying attention to the comments being made in court.
3:29 pm - Dawson: The court is going to agree with Ohio that they have jurisdiction. Florida retains emergency jurisdiction.
3:35 pm - DCF said Rifqa will be escorted back to Ohio and turned over to Franklin County Children's Servies.
3:36 pm - Stemberger said it's important that her legal status be settled quickly. He said her parents have threatened to have her sent back to Sri Lanka "where mercy killings are practiced."
3:37 pm - Attorney Roger Weedem, who represents Rifqa's mother here, said Ohio is capable of handling immigration issues.
3:38 pm - Judge Dawson said he still concerned about this issue. "The court would feel lot better if these documents were here, before it gives up jurisdiction."
3:39 pm - Bartholomew said Rifqa Bary runs the risk of deportation, if takes public transportation anywhere in this country.
3:40 pm - Elahi is getting argumentative with the judge who insists on getting the immigration paperwork. "You and your client didn't supply it. I want it before this child leaves Florida," said Dawson.
3:41 pm - Elahi is accusing Rifqa's attorney is "religious predatory practices" and might take her someplace into hiding.
3:42 pm - Dawson said it is the parents' fault for not getting the immigration documentation. He doesn't plan to release her until he sees it.
3:46 pm - Ohio attorneys for Bary's parents are arguing for her quick transfer there. Ohio Judge Gill said she agreed with Judge Dawson that immigration papers need to be provided immediately, before the teen is sent back to Ohio.
3:54 pm - Bartholomew said she has received copies of only two pages of Rifqa's mother's passport. She wants the entire document.
3:55 pm - Dawson said he is troubled that the parents seem not to know what the court demands.
3:57 pm - Dawson set an administrative hearing on October 23rd. He wants to know by then that the immigration papers have been supplied, as he ordered in each of the three hearings he had held for the teenager's status. Source.
Osama Abdallah Declares: "I'll Be Enjoying My Virgins While You Christians Rot in Hell!"
The man who sees sex behind every verse in the Bible, the man who condemns Latinas for being too easy, the man who says he would skin a woman alive for sexual immorality--Yes, Osama Abdallah--boasts about the virgins he'll be having an orgy with in Paradise. Well, if sex is such an essential part of Islamic paradise, and if heaven is nothing more than an eternal orgy, why would Osama condemn people for getting a taste of heaven right here on earth? Here he goes:
And VJ, I'll take all of the virgins, dude. I'll enjoy 100% of the bliss of Heaven from all dimensions and all directions and all benefits, while you ROT IN HELL FOR ETERNITY.
I am not ashamed of my beautiful Islam. On the contrary, I am very proud of It, and I thank Allah Almighty days and nights endlessly that He Created me a Muslim, from Muslim upbringing and parents and family and background, and not created me from infidels' background. I know that I would've eventually became a Muslim by Allah Almighty's Will, but still, being a Muslim 100% all of my life is a MEDAL OF HONOR FOR ME, AND IS VERY VERY PRECIOUS AND DEAR TO MY HEART.
So rot in Hell buddy. Keep mocking the Truth and follow the blind. You are another blind one. So I'll let the blind lead the blind.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Is Christianity a Religion of Peace?
David Wood vs. Abdullah al-Andalusi
Rebuttals and Crossfire
Audience Questions and Conclusions
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
David and Sam on TV again This Friday, Saturday, and Sunday!
It's that time again!
Sam and I will be on ABN again this weekend.
*****UPDATE***** The schedule's been changed. For our European friends who can't watch at the times below, ABN will be rebroadcasting the programs. We'll update you with the rebroadcast schedule.
*****SECOND UPDATE***** The Saturday evening schedule has been moved half an hour. I've corrected it below.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9TH
8:30 PM-10:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time)
11:30 PM-1:30 AM (EST)
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10TH
9:30 PM-11:30 PM (EST)
12:00 PM-2:00 AM (EST)
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 11TH
9:00 PM-11:00 PM (EST)
11:30 PM-1:30 AM (EST)
To watch the programs, visit ABN's website and click the third box on the right for live-streaming. (Requires Windows Media Player or something similar.)
Sam and I will be on ABN again this weekend.
*****UPDATE***** The schedule's been changed. For our European friends who can't watch at the times below, ABN will be rebroadcasting the programs. We'll update you with the rebroadcast schedule.
*****SECOND UPDATE***** The Saturday evening schedule has been moved half an hour. I've corrected it below.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9TH
8:30 PM-10:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time)
11:30 PM-1:30 AM (EST)
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10TH
9:30 PM-11:30 PM (EST)
12:00 PM-2:00 AM (EST)
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 11TH
9:00 PM-11:00 PM (EST)
11:30 PM-1:30 AM (EST)
To watch the programs, visit ABN's website and click the third box on the right for live-streaming. (Requires Windows Media Player or something similar.)
Monday, October 5, 2009
Acts 17 Radio Today at 4:00 P.M. (EST)
Friends,
Nabeel and I will be on the radio today at 4:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time). We will be discussing the Rifqa Bary case and apostasy in Islam. For those in the New York area (as well as New Jersey and Connecticut), tune in to WMCA 570AM. Those in other areas can listen to the half-hour program on the internet. Just go to WMCA's website, where you'll see a "Listen Live" box at the top. Since we're new to doing our own radio programs, please give us as much feedback as possible.
Nabeel and I will be on the radio today at 4:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time). We will be discussing the Rifqa Bary case and apostasy in Islam. For those in the New York area (as well as New Jersey and Connecticut), tune in to WMCA 570AM. Those in other areas can listen to the half-hour program on the internet. Just go to WMCA's website, where you'll see a "Listen Live" box at the top. Since we're new to doing our own radio programs, please give us as much feedback as possible.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
"Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" Abdullah Andalusi and Yahya Seymour vs. Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood
REBUTTALS
CROSSFIRE & CONCLUSIONS
Saturday, October 3, 2009
David on "Iron Sharpens Iron" Last Week: MP3 Available
Here's an MP3 of a program I did last week on Chris Arnzen's "Iron Sharpens Iron." We talked about Islam in the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)