The Great Debate Series Michigan: June 18th-21st

You don't want to miss this series.

FRIDAY, JUNE 18TH
***7:00 P.M.***
David Wood vs. Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal
Topic: "Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?"

SATURDAY, JUNE 19TH
***2:30 P.M.***
Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal vs. Sam Shamoun
Topic: "Was Muhammad Predicted in the Bible?"

***6:00 P.M.***
Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal vs. David Wood
Topic: "Does Science Show That Islam Is True?"

SUNDAY, JUNE 20TH
***3:00 P.M.***
James White vs. Sheikh Mohammad Jowad Al-Ansari
Topic: "Has the Bible Been Corrupted?"

***6:30 P.M.***
Sheikh Mohammad Jowad Al-Ansari vs. Sam Shamoun
Topic: "Has the Qur'an Been Corrupted?"

MONDAY, JUNE 21ST
***7:00 P.M.***
Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal vs. James White
Topic: "Jesus: Prophet of Allah or Divine Son of God?"

LOCATION:
The Center for Religious Debate
11338 Ozga Road, Romulus, MI 48174

ADMISSION:
$8 ($5 for Students) Per Debate, or
$15 ($10 for Students) for All Six Debates

Jesus or Muhammad Today (Saturday) at 2:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)

We'll be having an episode of "Jesus or Muhammad" at 2:30 today. (We're trying to have some afternoon episodes for people in radically different time zones). Be sure to tune in via satellite or online here.

New Jihad Jam Doesn't Hit the Charts

If the amazing literary excellence of the Qur'an hasn't convinced you to wage war against the infidels, perhaps this new Muslim tune will!

And the Coward of the Year Award Goes to . . . Attorney General Eric Holder!

So Islam is completely inconsistent with anything done by terrorists. Perhaps Mr. Holder can explain a few of the following passages.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Qur’an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.

Qur’an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement.

Qur’an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Qur’an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah’s Messenger said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim 33—It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

More Support for Terrorism at University of California

Just when you thought that Jumanah Imad Albahri was a lone voice in campus support for terrorism, I posted a new video. (Take note of the applause for this man's comments.)

Malik Ali at University of California Irvine:

University of California (San Diego) MSA Student Declares Her Support for Genocide against Jews

You'd have quite a bit of trouble finding a large group of students who call for the annihilation of Muslims. Yet it's not so difficult to find a group of students supporting the annihilation of the Jews. Try the Muslim Student Association. Many MSA students come across as quite peaceful. Last year, Nabeel and I attended their annual meeting, which focused on Dawah efforts for the upcoming year, and how they can better represent Islam on campuses. If you were to walk by an MSA student, you'd think to yourself, "Here's another example of a peaceful Western Muslim, one who just wants everyone to get along." But when you dig a little deeper, you find, well, this:



****UPDATE**** I'm still waiting for all of the world's peaceful Muslims to come out and condemn this student's support for genocide. Yep, I'm waiting. Just sitting here. Waiting.

Swedish Cartoonist Lars Vilks Assaulted by Muslim (to Shouts of "Allahu Akbar!")

Consider the following chain of events.

Muhammad flees Mecca (after threatening to slaughter its inhabitants) and enters Medina, portraying himself as a peacemaker. The unsuspecting tribes of Medina agree to protect him in the event of war. Muhammad then begins attacking the Meccan caravans, leading Medina into war with Mecca. No one except the Muslims wanted the city to be plunged into war.

Upset at all the violence brought on by Muhammad, a man named Abu Afak wrote a short poem, which declared that the people of Medina would be better off following someone other than the Prophet of Islam. The poem read:

“Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
“Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba.” (Ibn Ishaq, p. 675)

This was too much for Muhammad to bear, so he ordered his followers to murder Abu Afak. They stabbed him to death while he was asleep.

Outraged that Muhammad had ordered the brutal assassination of a man who was more than a hundred years old, a woman named Asma demanded retaliation. She wrote:

“I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
and Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
One not of Murad or Madhhij.
Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?” . . . (Ibn Ishaq, pp. 675-676)

Since Asma called for violence against Muhammad, the latter ordered her brutal assassination as well. She was killed at night in the presence of her children.

Think about the progression. People invite Muslims to live peaceful lives in Medina. Muslims instead bring violence. Someone speaks out against the violence, and Muslims respond with further violence. Someone gets upset and calls for violence against the Muslims, and this leads to more violence. And Muslims always point the finger at anyone who dares criticize them.

History repeats itself.

Consider the following chain of events.

The Netherlands invites tons of Muslims to live peacefully in a beautiful country. Some Muslims repay the kindness with rape, murder, terrorism, and demands for Sharia law.

Outraged by this, a Danish newspaper prints twelve Muhammad cartoons, portraying Muhammad as a man who inspires violence. Muslims respond by slaughtering more than a hundred people in the name of Islam.

Upset that Muslims would kill over cartoons, Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks draws the following cartoon of Muhammad as a dog (Note: cover your eyes if your belief in Islam is so fragile that it can't endure the insults of cartoonists):



Even though he only drew it as a response to unspeakable Muslim atrocities, any such cartoons demand violence. Al-Qaeda put a $100,000 bounty on Vilks's head, and he's been getting death threats ever since. And here's what happens when Vilks tries to give a presentation on free speech at a university:

STOCKHOLM - A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog was assaulted Tuesday as angry protesters interrupted his university lecture about the limits of artistic freedom.

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during the lecture, breaking his glasses but leaving him uninjured. It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

A video clip of the incident on the website of a Swedish newspaper showed police using pepper spray and batons to hold off an angry crowd shouting "God is great" in Arabic after Vilks was escorted out of the lecture hall.

Vilks has faced numerous threats over his controversial drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body, but Tuesday's incident was the first time he has been physically assaulted.

Earlier this year U.S. investigators said Vilks was the target of an alleged murder plot involving Colleen LaRose, an American woman who dubbed herself "Jihad Jane," and who now faces life in prison. She had pleaded not guilty.

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident at Uppsala University.

Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said, describing the scene as "complete chaos." Read More.

Of course, many non-Muslims are going to be outraged that Vilks was assaulted in the name of Islam, and more people are going to respond with cartoons. This will lead to further violence from Muslims, which will lead to further cartoons and criticism, and so on.

There are only two possible solutions to all of this. First, all non-Muslims can submit to Islam, agree never to criticize it, and give the religion such a privileged place that Muslim atrocities will never again be condemned. But this just isn't going to happen. Second, Muslims can stop turning to violence as the solution for everything that goes wrong. Sadly, I doubt this will happen either. As long as there are Muslims who take Muhammad's commands seriously, there will be murder in the name of Islam.

WOOD'S PREDICTION: Muslims like Yahya Snow will be more upset about me posting the above cartoon than they are about their fellow Muslims attacking cartoonists, killing in the name of Islam, blowing up girls' schools, gang-raping young girls, etc. However, when Muslims prove me right, don't think that I'm a prophet. I just notice patterns of behavior.

Why Do Muslims Get to Insult Other Religions?

We all know that the penalty for insulting Muhammad is death. South Park has been mocking Jesus for years, and they've directly mocked God numerous times. None of this gets a reaction from Muslims. But when the show insults Muhammad (supposedly just a man), Muslims are ready to kill.

I've brought up the issue of consistency several times. But I'd like to raise it again.

In the following passage, a man points out two alternatives for Muhammad. If Muhammad is victorious over the Quraysh, he will be remembered as the man who slaughtered his own tribesmen. If the Quraysh are victorious over him, Muhammad's followers will abandon him. Think about Abu Bakr's response:

Urwah went to the Prophet and began speaking to him. The Prophet spoke as he had spoken to Budayl. Then Urwah said: "Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate [i.e. exterminate] your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you." Abu Bakr said, "Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat! Would we flee and leave him?" (History of al-Tabari, Volume 8, p. 76)

Al-Lat was a goddess worshipped by Urwah (yes, this is the same al-Lat praised by Muhammad in the infamous "Satanic Verses"). Notice that Abu Bakr responds to Urwah's reasonable comment with an extraordinarily offensive insult against Urwah's religious beliefs.

What would happen if someone on this blog were to utter such an insult about Muhammad? Muslims would be shouting from the rooftops that we're offensive, bigoted, hate-filled, racist Islamophobes. Yahya Snow would go around telling people to rebuke us (as he's doing right now). And yet Abu Bakr was free to insult people's religious beliefs in the most offensive terms imaginable. Hypocrisy anyone?

Qur'an Error #1: Was Mary Both the Mother of Jesus and the Sister of Aaron?

Supplement to Nabeel's Post on Qur'an 5:32

As Nabeel noted, and as we have noted before, Qur'an 5:32 is constantly ripped out of context by Western Muslims. The meaning is distorted to such an extent that the "Westernized" interpretation is exactly the opposite of what the verse means in context.

I wanted to add that, two days ago, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) issued a press release concerning the Times Square bomb plot. Guess which verse of the Qur'an they cited to prove that Islam promotes peace and love towards unbelievers. Yep, you guessed it. And if you also guessed that, like other Muslims (including our friend Nazam), ISNA left out the "We ordained for the Children of Israel" and "spreading mischief in the land" portions, and that they didn't explain to their readers that the very next verse calls for the brutal massacre of those who cause mischief in Muslim lands (e.g. the United States), you guessed right. Observe ISNA's press release:

(Plainfield, IN 05/04/2010) - The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) joins the Muslim American community and the rest of our fellow citizens in expressing its appreciation of the outstanding work done by the various law enforcement agencies in investigating and apprehending the alleged perpetrator(s) of the botched attack on New York and its residents.

At the same time, ISNA condemns in the strongest terms the planned attack on innocent city-dwellers of every race and creed. The attack, described by the alleged sponsors as a sort of "pay-back" or "revenge", is "inexcusable and without any justification in Islam or authentic Muslim tradition", said Dr. Ingrid Mattson, president of ISNA. "Even the murder of a single innocent person is abhorrent and in direct contradiction to the clear and unequivocal teachings of our faith (Quran Chapter 5,Verse 32), let alone the mass murder of unsuspecting innocent bystanders in a crowded square", she added.

Now I have to ask, if Muslims are allowed to rip passages of the Qur'an out of context to satisfy an agenda, why do Muslims object when critics of Islam do the same? Suppose I were to say: "Well, of course Muslims are trying to blow up Times Square. Surah 9:5 says that Muslims are to 'slay the idolaters wherever you find them.' And since they regard almost all Westerners as idolaters, their religion obligates them to kill us (which is what car-bombs do) wherever they find us (which includes Times Square)."

Here Muslims would quickly condemn such a claim. "How dare you rip this passage out of context! You have to quote the entire verse! You have to quote the verses that come before this! And the verses that come after! You have to examine the historical context! Only then can you arrive at the real meaning of the passage!"

Amen. But for Muslims, this methodology only seems to apply when it's convenient for them. When it's not convenient (i.e. when it doesn't allow them to deceive Westerners about Muhammad's teachings), sound methodology is utterly abandoned.

Of course, as long as it remains Islamophobic to seriously and critically examine the teachings of Islam, Muslims will be able to mislead their ignorant and ill-informed non-Muslim audience.

Here's a video I made on this topic after CNN used 5:32 (with the "We ordained for the Children of Israel" and "spreading mischief in the land" portions carefully removed) to condemn the Fort Hood Massacre:



On a related note, I made a pamphlet (one page, double-sided, Word format) discussing Islam's violent teachings. The pamphlet begins by discussing the misrepresentation and distortion of 5:32. If anyone is interested in distributing copies, I could send you the file, and you can print and fold some copies on a printer.

Quran 5:32, Nazam, and Neglecting Context

Nazam is a regular on our blog and an active proponent for Islam in the UK. I met Nazam this past summer in London; he's very congenial and I really like the guy.

All affability aside, he has struck a nerve that I simply cannot ignore. In the comment thread of a recent post, he refers to the would-be Times Square bomber and the man who initially pointed out the danger to the police. Nazam said this:

Just a little quote from the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims.

“…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” - The Holy Quran (Chapter Five, Verse 32).

Just think who gets the reward, Fahad, the allege bomber or Aliou Niasse? =)

What bothers me is Nazam has ripped 5:32 out of context, and being a Muslim apologist, he probably knows it full well. In fact, 5:32 is the most ripped-out-of-context verse of the Qur'an in the West. Muslims (and even news organizations) often refer to this verse in order to show that Islam teaches murder is wrong and saving lives is the prescribed action for all people.

But this is absolutely not what this verse says. In fact, it says almost the exact opposite: that Muslims can kill those who are their enemies! The only way you can conclude as Nazam has concluded is to ignore the verses that immediately follow 5:32, as well as to ignore parts of the verse itself.

Here is 5:32 in its context, with all words included (emphasis mine):

On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

Salient points:

1 - It explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah's command to Muhammad's people.

2 - Even if this were a command to the Muslims, there's still an escape clause: "unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land." If someone is "spreading mischief", he can still be killed. Now let's think for a moment. The would-be Times Square bomber considers Americans to be spreading mischief in Palestine and around the world (practically all Muslims I know think this, even the ones who are American citizens). Accordingly, even if this verse were to apply to someone like Faisal Shahzad, he would still be justified in his slaughter.

As if this weren't obvious enough from the verse itself, the Qur'an further expounds this point in the very next verse. 5:33 says

The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

This verse is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite.

It is undeniably clear that, in order to make Islam seem peaceful, Nazam and many other Muslims rip this verse out of its context, take words out of the very verse itself, changing the entire message for something else. I wonder if they know they are guilty of Surah 5:13. In any case, we should not let ourselves (or anyone who might be interested) be deceived by the popular Muslim interpretation of these verses.

Does Living in the US Radicalize Muslims?

We know that numerous people in other lands often demonize the United States and call for its downfall. This does not seem to be the case with the would-be Times Square Bomber. Well, not before he came to the US.

It seems that Faisal Shahzad was a normal, everyday Muslim when he arrived in America. Like the thousands of Muslims who are my friends and family, Faisal came (it seems) to improve his life, get married, and live the American dream. According to the Telegraph,

his alleged transition to terrorist struck those who knew him as similarly unlikely. Faiz Ahmed, mayor of Muhib Banda, the village in north-western Pakistan where he grew up, described a shy boy who was a "most modern and smart person", showing little interest in radical politics or religion before leaving for the US. READ MORE

This lends itself to the question, then: does living in the US radicalize Muslims?* Clearly, it radicalized at least one. Certainly, with groups like Revolution Muslim, it has great potential to radicalize many more. What is it about our nation that would set Muslims into a murderous fury against the West?

I think that there are a combination of factors:

1 - Ease of access to Muhammad's true teachings

2 - Free speech for radical Muslims

3 - Islamophobiaphobia

1 - Ease of Access to Muhammad's True Teachings. If it weren't for the internet and copious publications of historical source material, I would never have known the extent of Muhammad's teachings regarding the ultimate and violent conquest of Islam. My family and jamaat (sect or group) of Islam had taught me that Islam was peaceful and that Muhammad was the prince of peace. However, because I lived in the US, I was able to read what he actually taught: an initially peaceful message which transitioned to a violent one as Muhammad's status in society transitioned from a weak to a powerful one. Had this realization not aroused enough cognitive dissonance in me to question the truth of Islam, I may very well have been violently radicalized by concluding: "If these are Muhammad's teachings, I must follow them."

2 - Free Speech for Radical Muslims. If it hasn't become clear yet by watching Revolution Muslim and the profusion of protests in our very own country, people can say whatever they want to promote a violent Islamic perspective without having to worry about anybody quieting them. Though free speech is generally good, it fails to be good when it cannot be counterbalanced by free speech to the contrary; in this case, we need to be able to point out the dangers of this radicalization that is so freely being promoted by some Muslims. This leads me to my next point.

3 - Islamophobiaphobia. As I have indicated before, people are so scared of being labeled Islamophobic that they neither speak out against the dangers of radical Islam, nor do they lend their support to others who do. This leaves the free speech of the radical Muslims unchecked and unbalanced. Muslims who might be swayed not to become violent hear no opposing position because it's not allowed to be spoken by people like the authors of this blog without being labelled as hate speech.

By my reckoning, these are three factors that lead some Muslims who come to the US to a point of radicalization. What are your thoughts?

*By "radical" I do not mean a radical theology, as if only radicals would interpret Muhammad's message to be violent. I think any Muslim who gives the appropriate weight to Muhammad's teachings would conclude that violence is enjoined upon Muslims to advance the Islamic cause. Moreso I refer to a radical lifestyle, which would ironically be in line with traditional Islam.

Pakistani Suspect Faisal Shahzad in Police Custody

Let's all be thankful that most terrorists are completely incompetent.


And yet our government was so quick to assure us that this had nothing to do with terrorism, and that the criminal was most likely a non-Muslim. Perhaps it was someone angry about Obamacare:

NEW YORK - Authorities arrested a suspect in the attempted weekend car bombing in Times Square, NBC News' justice correspondent Pete Williams reported early Tuesday morning.

A U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent, Shahzad Faisal, was trying to leave the country Monday night at John F Kennedy International Airport when he was picked up by Customs and Border Protection agents, Williams reported.

Earlier, an official told The Associated Press that the potential suspect recently traveled to Pakistan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the case was at a sensitive stage. Read More.

Revolution Muslim in Times Square

Just a few hours before an explosive device failed to detonate, Revolution Muslim was preaching in Times Square. Where were all the peaceful, tolerant Muslims who disagree with them? (RM even won a convert.)



I wish these guys would quit playing hide and seek (showing up unannounced and then disappearing afterwards). I'd really, really like some Qur'an lessons. How about posting their Dawah location ahead of time? (And if anyone ever sees them starting their Dawah, send me a quick email. I might be able to get there before they finish.)

Come out, come out wherever you are!

Sami Zaatari vs. Revolution Muslim

It's no shock to anyone that I'm not a fan of Muhammad. Nevertheless, I also believe in being nice to people, unless there's a very good reason not to be nice. Thus, I don't go around calling Muhammad a "pedophile" or drawing pictures of him--not because I care about Muhammad's feelings (he's dead), but because there's no need to pointlessly upset people. The same attitude is held by most critics of Islam, as well as by most of the people who visit this blog.

Yet many of us believe that it is morally wrong to comply with terrorist threats. To back down when threatened is to encourage further threats. When terrorists are attacking our fundamental rights, the situation is even worse. The Founding Fathers of the United States were willing to lay down their lives so that future generations would have certain freedoms. Success for groups like Revolution Muslim would mean the end of these freedoms. Thus, when terrorists say, "Don't do X, or you'll end up like Theo Van Gogh," the natural response is to show the world what all the fuss is about, and how silly it is to want to kill someone over something like this:


(I posted the Danish cartoons several years ago here when the riots started.)

But Revolution Muslim got what they wanted. Comedy Central is now terrified of even mentioning Muhammad in a cartoon. Even Molly Norris, who suggested an international "Draw Muhammad" Day, backed down almost immediately. She's now going to Muslim meetings to show that she's repented of her sin (of standing up for free speech). Yet others aren't so quick to give up their freedoms, and there is a desire to teach terrorists a lesson when they try to intimidate people. The attitude seems to be: "If you threaten us for doing X, we're going to do X even more. Eventually you'll learn to quit threatening us."

Of course, there are many different positions one may take. On one end of the spectrum, there are people who want to draw cartoons of Muhammad simply to offend Muslims. Their desire to offend Muslims has nothing to do with the recent threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker; they're simply using this as an opportunity to vent the anger they already had. On the other end of the spectrum are Muslims who want to slaughter anyone who dares criticize, insult, or draw Muhammad. Some of them are dying for an excuse to kill a kafir. Most of us, whether Christian or Muslim, are somewhere in between these extremes.

Take Sami Zaatari, who offers a different response to cartoons of Muhammad:



Consider some of the differences between Sami's method and Revolution Muslim's method.

(1) Sami's method is less likely to start a massive cartoon campaign against Muhammad. There's nothing in the video that would be considered a threat to free speech, and therefore nothing to upset people. The angry folks at the end of the spectrum are going to continue drawing pictures of Muhammad (just as Muslims at the opposite end will continue shouting threats), but the rest of the world will have no desire to go overboard.

(2) Revolution Muslim's method is more likely to cause networks like Comedy Central to back down. That is, like it or not, the threat of violence can be effective to a certain degree. In the long run, however, such threats may be counterproductive. Consider the Danish Cartoon Controversy. If Muslims of the world had remained quiet and peaceful in response to the cartoons, no one would even remember the cartoons, and South Park wouldn't have bothered responding.

(3) Both methods are in line with Muhammad's teachings. We have records of Muhammad enduring persecution without immediate retaliation, and we have records of Muhammad ordering the deaths of those who insult him. Indeed, since the position of Muslims in the West is similar to the position of the early Muslim community in Mecca (i.e. they are a minority), and since Muhammad didn't resort to violence when he was significantly outnumbered, one could argue that Muslims in the West should not resort to violence when Muhammad is insulted (at least until the Muslim population increases dramatically).

(4) If success is the goal (that is, if Muslims really don't want to see Muhammad insulted), threats certainly aren't the way to go. It's only a matter of time before people like Parker and Stone go on a cartoon rampage, and this wouldn't happen if Muslims weren't trying to intimidate people into giving Islam a privileged status.

(5) Sami's approach leads to further dialogue and investigation, while Revolution Muslim's approach leads to further threats (from Muslims) and insults (from non-Muslims). For instance, Sami proposes videos about Muhammad's wonderful teachings. I'll most likely respond to those videos, arguing that Muslims are ripping the teachings out of context, ignoring other teachings, etc., at which point Muslims will disagree with me, and I'll disagree with them, and they'll call me an islamophobe, and I'll do three episodes of "Jesus or Muhammad" on the issues, etc. But isn't this back-and-forth better than the threats-insults-more threats-more insults exchange?

With all of this said, I think it's too late. Sami will likely get a good response, but groups like Revolution Muslim will continue to threaten people, and people will respond with insults, and so on. I see a spiral starting.

Shocker of the Millennium! Muslims Responsible for Placing Bomb in Times Square!

And yet, as my previous post shows, I tried to keep an open mind.

In New York City, there are members of dozens and dozens of religious groups. Since all of these groups (according to Western myths) teach peace and tolerance, any terrorist attack should have an equal likelihood of coming from any religious group. Why, then, aren't we surprised to hear, over and over again, that terrorist attacks are almost always carried out by Muslims? Why are we shocked on those rare occasions when a non-Muslim group turns to violence?

NEW YORK - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that authorities were recovering evidence from the car bomb discovered in New York's Times Square.

Police found the "amateurish" but potentially powerful bomb in a smoking sport utility vehicle in the busy theater district Saturday night, then cleared the streets of thousands of tourists so they could dismantle it.

The vehicle was removed and most of Times Square was reopened Sunday morning, NBC reported.

Officials were treating the incident as a potential terrorist attack, Napolitano said, though it was too soon to tell who is responsible. She added that investigators had no suspects but that they had recovered forensic evidence, including fingerprints, from the vehicle.

The Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the failed attack. In a one-minute video allegedly released by the Pakistani Taliban, the group said the attack is revenge for the death of its leader Baitullah Mehsud and the recent killings of the top leaders of al-Qaida in Iraq. Read More.

Improvised Explosive Device in Times Square

I go to Times Square all the time, so this one hits close to home.

There isn't enough information to conclude who's behind this yet (though you probably shouldn't put your money on radical Quakers or Mormon fundamentalists), but early reports suggest that an SUV that caught fire in Times Square was loaded with gasoline tanks, propane tanks, gun powder, and a timing device. Several blocks have been evacuated. Some are concerned that the license plate of the Nissan SUV was registered to a Ford. It's a bit early to jump to conclusions, though, as facts are often inaccurate until sifted and confirmed. Police are saying it isn't a terrorist attack. I'll keep you updated as more facts surface. (I'd jump on the subway and head down there, but I have a strange suspicion it's not running.)

Jesus or Muhammad Today (Saturday) at 2:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)

We'll be having an episode of "Jesus or Muhammad" at 2:30 today. (We're trying to have some afternoon episodes for people in radically different time zones). Be sure to tune in via satellite or online here.

Deceptive God, Incompetent Messiah: What Islam Really Teaches about Allah and Jesus

A long, long time ago (even before this blog started!) I wrote an article titled "Deceptive God, Incompetent Messiah: What Islam Really Teaches about Allah and Jesus" for Answering Islam. I think the argument was already airtight, but I've expanded the points in this video: