Tuesday, April 13, 2010
"Leaving Islam" Ad Campaign Kicks off in Miami
Many Muslims don't know how free they are in the United States. A network is forming to help them leave Islam. Buses around Miami have started carrying the ad.
Legal Jihad Exposed: Woman Suing Judge over Hijab-Ban Worried about Nude Pics
I really don't care if Muslim women send nude pictures to their boyfriends. But this is a little different. Raneen Albaghdady is suing a judge for making her take off her Hijab in court, as this supposedly interfered with her Islamic modesty. Now she's panicking because some cellphones stolen from her contain nude pictures, and she's worried that these pictures will end up on the internet.
Here's an idea. If you're really concerned about modesty, and you believe that a judge is violating your rights, then take it to court. But if modesty isn't really an issue for you and people are passing around your nude photos, no faking.
HEIGHTS — A Muslim woman who is suing a Wayne County judge for making her remove a religious scarf during a court proceeding says that several cell phones containing nude photos of her were stolen during a burglary at her house.
Raneen Albaghdady, 33, called police March 27 after she found her house in the 25000 block of Andover ransacked. Among the items taken were six cell phones that she told police had nude photos on them.
She said she suspected an ex-boyfriend was responsible for the break-in, and that she was worried he may post the photos on the Internet, because he previously had posted other pictures of her online, police said.
The incident could come into play as her lawsuit against 3rd Circuit Court Family Division Judge William Callahan moves forward.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in August, the suit alleges that Callahan denied Albaghdady’s religious freedom when he made her remove her hijab during a June name change hearing in his Detroit courtroom.
A hijab is an Islamic headdress worn by Muslim women that covers various parts of the head, neck, and face, according to the complaint.
At a press conference announcing the lawsuit held by the Council of American Islamic Relations Michigan chapter, a Muslim civil rights organization and co-plaintiff on the suit, a spokeswoman for the group described the significance of the hijab.
“It’s out of sheer modesty of appearance and dress and covering your beauty,” she said. “When one is accustomed to wearing the hijab, to a certain way of dress, to a certain way of acting, to have to then uncover, you almost feel revealed or definitely very vulnerable, but understandably so, humiliated and embarrassed.” Read More.
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Angel of the LORD vs. Yahya Snow - Part Three
When I held out the illusory hope that Yahya would have the courage of his convictions to debate this subject, I anticipated him making several strategic mistakes, not the least of which is errantly assuming that certain canned objections made against the New Testament witness to the Trinity would have any relevance to the Old Testament. Although he decided not to follow through with the debate, his attempted rebuttal of Sam's teaching on the appearances of God in the Old Testament as the Angel of the LORD show that he would not have disappointed me in this regard.
When Muslims argue against the New Testament witness to the deity of Christ, they often point out that Jesus nowhwere claimed to be God. Although this claim is false and flawed for many reasons, the fact is it is easily demonstrated to be false when it comes to the Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament. In fact, it is largely because Muslims like Yahya are ignorant of what the Old Testament says that they can say with a straight face that Jesus never claimed to be God.
More than once in his post Yahya registers this objection along the following lines, "If God were the Angel, God would be guilty of secretly showing up, for he never claimed to be the Angel" (my paraphrase). Now it is far from clear, to grossly understate the matter, why God is not aloud to stop by without giving advanced notice, as if he is some kind of uninvited house guest or felonious intruder; or why, once He does draw near, He needs to make sure He first checks in with the local authorities so they know He is in town. But as I said, it really isn't necessary to explain to Yahya why that is - though one would have assumed that Yahya knew that God can appear when, where, and how He pleases, and that He doesn't even need to leave His calling card - for there are occasions when the Angel openly and directly identifies Himself as the LORD.
For example, in Genesis 28 it is written:
Another closely related claim made by Yahya is that no prophet ever declared the Angel of the LORD to be God. All of the instances we've already seen prove the opposite, since they are recorded in the prophetic writings. So far we have seen in the writings of Moses that the Angel was recognized as God by Hagar, a testimony of such a nature as would not likely be included if Moses did not agree and was not seeking to convey that very point, and we've also seen it in the cases just mentioned, where the Angel is recorded as identifying Himself as such to both Jacob and later to Moses. These testimonies ought to be sufficient to disabuse Yahya of yet another false assumption, but occasion will arise to point out other examples in future posts, Lord willing.
When Muslims argue against the New Testament witness to the deity of Christ, they often point out that Jesus nowhwere claimed to be God. Although this claim is false and flawed for many reasons, the fact is it is easily demonstrated to be false when it comes to the Angel of the LORD in the Old Testament. In fact, it is largely because Muslims like Yahya are ignorant of what the Old Testament says that they can say with a straight face that Jesus never claimed to be God.
More than once in his post Yahya registers this objection along the following lines, "If God were the Angel, God would be guilty of secretly showing up, for he never claimed to be the Angel" (my paraphrase). Now it is far from clear, to grossly understate the matter, why God is not aloud to stop by without giving advanced notice, as if he is some kind of uninvited house guest or felonious intruder; or why, once He does draw near, He needs to make sure He first checks in with the local authorities so they know He is in town. But as I said, it really isn't necessary to explain to Yahya why that is - though one would have assumed that Yahya knew that God can appear when, where, and how He pleases, and that He doesn't even need to leave His calling card - for there are occasions when the Angel openly and directly identifies Himself as the LORD.
For example, in Genesis 28 it is written:
Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying...I am with you and will watch over you whereever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you." When Jacob awoke from his sleep, he thought, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it." He was afraid and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven." Early the next morning Jacob took the stone he had placed under his had and set it up as a pillar and poured oil on top of it. He called that place Bethel [House of God], though the city used to be called Luz. Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father's house, the LORD will be my God and this stone I have set up as a pillar will be God's house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth." (Genesis 28)Clearly in the passage above the person speaking declares Himself to be LORD and God. The significance of this appears by comparing it to Genesis 31, verses 10-13, where Jacob recounts a dream he later had in Paddan Aram:
"In breeding season I once had a dream in which I looked up and saw that the male goats mating with the flock were streaked, speckled or spotted. The angel of God said to me in the dream, 'Jacob.' I answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Look up and see that all the male goats mating with the flock are streaked, speckled or spotted, for I have seen all that Laban has been doing to you. I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me. Now leave this land at once and go back to your native land.'"No doubt it is because the Angel of the LORD declared Himself to be a divine theophany, that Jacob blessed Joseph in the name of the Angel:
Another passage from the Old Testament of which Yahya is apparently ignorant, is the account of God's appearance to Moses in the burning bush - Exodus 3. Most people who read the account quickly grasp that it is God who is talking to Moses and never even notice that there is more to the story than that."Then he blessed Joseph and said,
'May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day,
the Angel who has delivered me from all harm — may he bless these boys.
May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly upon the earth.'" (Genesis 48:15-16)
Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up." When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Then he said, "I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. The LORD said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering. So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them. So now, go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt." But Moses said to God, "Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?" And God said, "I will be with you. And this will be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain." Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation."As much as Yahya may not like it, the Angel, without beating around the bush, declares Himself to be Yahweh and not an ordinary angel.
Another closely related claim made by Yahya is that no prophet ever declared the Angel of the LORD to be God. All of the instances we've already seen prove the opposite, since they are recorded in the prophetic writings. So far we have seen in the writings of Moses that the Angel was recognized as God by Hagar, a testimony of such a nature as would not likely be included if Moses did not agree and was not seeking to convey that very point, and we've also seen it in the cases just mentioned, where the Angel is recorded as identifying Himself as such to both Jacob and later to Moses. These testimonies ought to be sufficient to disabuse Yahya of yet another false assumption, but occasion will arise to point out other examples in future posts, Lord willing.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Angel of the LORD vs. Yahya Snow - Part Two
As we've already seen (here), the Old Testament does not comport with Yahya's unitarian assumption that God is a uni-personal being. Because of this, Yahya imposes his assumption on to the text, affirming every way in which the Angel is distinguished from God, and arbitrarily ruling out all the ways he is identified as God.
Another basic mistake made by Yahya is to assume that the word "angel" refers to a being's nature rather than its function, such that he thinks the deity of the Angel is ruled out by definition. Contrary to popular ignorance, the English word "angel" is not a translation of any Biblical word, such that one may claim it always and only refers to a certain order of beings. The word "angel" is actually a transliteration into English of the Greek word angelos, a word used in the Greek New Testament, and also in the Septuagint (LXX), i.e. a Greek translation of the the Hebrew Old Testament. The word in the original Hebrew is Malakh.
According to both Hebrew and Greek, the word simply means "messenger" and can refer to any being, heavenly or earthly, divine or human, God, angel or man, such that the mere use of the word tells us nothing about the nature of the being who bears it. There is absolutely no debate about this among Hebrew lexicologists, as any consultation of standard reference works, such as Gesenius, or Brown-Driver-Briggs, or Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm, will bear out. The same goes for the New Testament, q.v. Thayer, BDAG, etc.
To provide just one example of the word “angel” being used for a being other than one of the heavenly hosts, the following is written of the human forerunner of the Messiah in the Old Testament book of Malachi:
This passage is applied to John the Baptist by the Lord Jesus in the New Testament:
John the Baptist is obviously not a member of a class of heavenly beings called "angels", but he does function as a messenger. Accordingly, calling someone an angel does not tell us anything about the nature of the being or agent to whom it refers; it is merely a functional term.
Moreover, not only does this passage call John an "angel", i.e. messenger, but it uses the same word, Malakh, for the coming Messiah:
Another basic mistake made by Yahya is to assume that the word "angel" refers to a being's nature rather than its function, such that he thinks the deity of the Angel is ruled out by definition. Contrary to popular ignorance, the English word "angel" is not a translation of any Biblical word, such that one may claim it always and only refers to a certain order of beings. The word "angel" is actually a transliteration into English of the Greek word angelos, a word used in the Greek New Testament, and also in the Septuagint (LXX), i.e. a Greek translation of the the Hebrew Old Testament. The word in the original Hebrew is Malakh.
According to both Hebrew and Greek, the word simply means "messenger" and can refer to any being, heavenly or earthly, divine or human, God, angel or man, such that the mere use of the word tells us nothing about the nature of the being who bears it. There is absolutely no debate about this among Hebrew lexicologists, as any consultation of standard reference works, such as Gesenius, or Brown-Driver-Briggs, or Koehler, Baumgartner and Stamm, will bear out. The same goes for the New Testament, q.v. Thayer, BDAG, etc.
To provide just one example of the word “angel” being used for a being other than one of the heavenly hosts, the following is written of the human forerunner of the Messiah in the Old Testament book of Malachi:
“Behold, I send my messenger (Heb. Ma’lak; angel) and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple;...” (Malachi 3:1)
This passage is applied to John the Baptist by the Lord Jesus in the New Testament:
"….Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in Kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘I will send my messenger (Gr. angelos; angel) ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’” (Matthew 11:7-11)
John the Baptist is obviously not a member of a class of heavenly beings called "angels", but he does function as a messenger. Accordingly, calling someone an angel does not tell us anything about the nature of the being or agent to whom it refers; it is merely a functional term.
Moreover, not only does this passage call John an "angel", i.e. messenger, but it uses the same word, Malakh, for the coming Messiah:
"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years. "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.Of course Yahya may think it relevant to reply that the very idea of God being a messenger of someone is not possible as this would imply that there is someone he is sent by and whose message He brings. But this would simply be a repeat of what has already been exposed. Because God is not a uni-personal being, one person of the Godhead can be sent by and bring a message from another person of the Godhead. In addition, the very passage just quoted tells us that the "Messenger [i.e. Angel] of the Covenant" is the Lord: "...then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come." And lest it be objected that the word Lord may refer to others besides Yahweh, we are told that this Messenger or Lord will come to "his temple", i.e. the Temple of Yahweh.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Dead Yemeni Child Bride Tied Up, Raped, Says Mom
SHUEBA, Yemen (AP) -- A 13-year-old Yemeni child bride who bled to death shortly after marriage was tied down and forced to have sex by her husband, according to interviews with the child's mother, police and medical reports.
The girl's mother, Nijma Ahmed, 50, told the Associated Press that before her daughter lost consciousness, she said that her husband had tied her up and forced himself on her. ''She looked like she was butchered,'' she said about her daughter's injuries.
Elham Assi, 13, bled to death hours after she spoke to her mother and just days after she was married to a 23-year-old man. She died on April 2 in the deeply poor Yemeni village of Shueba, some 200 kilometers northwest of the capital. Her husband, Abed al-Hikmi, is in police custody.
The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen where a quarter of all females marry before the age of 15, according to a 2009 report by the country's Ministry of Social Affairs. Traditional families prefer young brides because they are seen as more obedient and are expected to have more children.
Legislation to ban child brides has been stalled by opposition from religious leaders. There has been no government comment over the case.
The girl -- one of eight siblings -- was pushed into marriage after an agreement between her brother and her future-husband to marry each other's sisters to avoid having to pay expensive bride-prices -- a common arrangement in Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East.
According to police notes from the interrogation of the husband, he was upset because he could not consummate their relationship and felt under pressure to prove his manhood.
Assi's mother said she also tried to persuade her daughter to have sex with her husband so as not to shame the family.
Al-Hikmi took his young bride to a nearby medical clinic, asking a doctor there to administer her tranquilizers so she would not resist his advances. The clinic said it refused.
Al-Hikmi then obtained performance enhancing pills, according to the police interrogation, and that night completed the act while she screamed.
The next day, he returned to the same medical clinic carrying Assi because she could not walk.
''I told him not to go near her for at least ten days,'' said Dr. Fathiya Haidar. She said Assi's vaginal canal was ripped.
A forensic report obtained by the AP showed that Assi's injuries were much more extensive, including extensive tearing around the vagina and rectum, suggesting that there might have been additional intercourse after the clinic visit.
Her mother said she visited Assi later that day, where she found her daughter fading in and out of consciousness.
''She whispered in my ear that he had tied her up and had sex with her violently,'' she said. ''I said to her husband, what have you done, you criminal?''
She said al-Hikmi told her that the young bride was just possessed by spirits and said he would take her to a folk healer to cast them out. Hours later, Assi was dead.
''She asked me to stay beside her,'' her mother said.
The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen and has drawn the attention of international rights groups seeking to pressure the government to outlaw child marriages.
''Early marriage places girls at increased risk of dropping out of school, being exposed to violence, abuse and exploitation, and even losing their lives from pregnancy, childbirth and other complications,'' said UNICEF's regional director Sigrid Kaag, in a statement Wednesday condemning the death.
A February 2009 law set the minimum age for marriage at 17, but it was repealed and sent back to parliament's constitutional committee for review after some lawmakers called it un-Islamic. The committee is expected to make a final decision on the legislation this month.
The issue of Yemen's child brides received widespread attention three years ago when an 8-year-old girl boldly went by herself to a courtroom and demanded a judge dissolve her marriage to a man in his 30s. She eventually won a divorce.
In September, a 12-year-old Yemeni child-bride died after struggling for three days in labor to give birth, a local human rights organization said. Source.
The girl's mother, Nijma Ahmed, 50, told the Associated Press that before her daughter lost consciousness, she said that her husband had tied her up and forced himself on her. ''She looked like she was butchered,'' she said about her daughter's injuries.
Elham Assi, 13, bled to death hours after she spoke to her mother and just days after she was married to a 23-year-old man. She died on April 2 in the deeply poor Yemeni village of Shueba, some 200 kilometers northwest of the capital. Her husband, Abed al-Hikmi, is in police custody.
The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen where a quarter of all females marry before the age of 15, according to a 2009 report by the country's Ministry of Social Affairs. Traditional families prefer young brides because they are seen as more obedient and are expected to have more children.
Legislation to ban child brides has been stalled by opposition from religious leaders. There has been no government comment over the case.
The girl -- one of eight siblings -- was pushed into marriage after an agreement between her brother and her future-husband to marry each other's sisters to avoid having to pay expensive bride-prices -- a common arrangement in Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East.
According to police notes from the interrogation of the husband, he was upset because he could not consummate their relationship and felt under pressure to prove his manhood.
Assi's mother said she also tried to persuade her daughter to have sex with her husband so as not to shame the family.
Al-Hikmi took his young bride to a nearby medical clinic, asking a doctor there to administer her tranquilizers so she would not resist his advances. The clinic said it refused.
Al-Hikmi then obtained performance enhancing pills, according to the police interrogation, and that night completed the act while she screamed.
The next day, he returned to the same medical clinic carrying Assi because she could not walk.
''I told him not to go near her for at least ten days,'' said Dr. Fathiya Haidar. She said Assi's vaginal canal was ripped.
A forensic report obtained by the AP showed that Assi's injuries were much more extensive, including extensive tearing around the vagina and rectum, suggesting that there might have been additional intercourse after the clinic visit.
Her mother said she visited Assi later that day, where she found her daughter fading in and out of consciousness.
''She whispered in my ear that he had tied her up and had sex with her violently,'' she said. ''I said to her husband, what have you done, you criminal?''
She said al-Hikmi told her that the young bride was just possessed by spirits and said he would take her to a folk healer to cast them out. Hours later, Assi was dead.
''She asked me to stay beside her,'' her mother said.
The practice of marrying young girls is widespread in Yemen and has drawn the attention of international rights groups seeking to pressure the government to outlaw child marriages.
''Early marriage places girls at increased risk of dropping out of school, being exposed to violence, abuse and exploitation, and even losing their lives from pregnancy, childbirth and other complications,'' said UNICEF's regional director Sigrid Kaag, in a statement Wednesday condemning the death.
A February 2009 law set the minimum age for marriage at 17, but it was repealed and sent back to parliament's constitutional committee for review after some lawmakers called it un-Islamic. The committee is expected to make a final decision on the legislation this month.
The issue of Yemen's child brides received widespread attention three years ago when an 8-year-old girl boldly went by herself to a courtroom and demanded a judge dissolve her marriage to a man in his 30s. She eventually won a divorce.
In September, a 12-year-old Yemeni child-bride died after struggling for three days in labor to give birth, a local human rights organization said. Source.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Angel of the LORD vs. Yahya Snow - Part One
Yahya Snow has ventured to “refute” Sam Shamoun’s case that a particular “angel”, i.e. the Angel of the Lord (Heb. Mal’ak Yahweh), is divine, one of the persons of the Godhead. Over the course of several posts I will respond to Yahya’s article for Sam.
To begin with, it should be remembered that unitarianism as opposed to Trinitarianism is the view that God is a uni-personal rather than a tri-personal being. Islamic Tawheed is one (and the worst) of many versions of the former; Christianity uniquely proclaims the latter.
This is important to keep in mind for the following reason: whereas on unitarian assumptions one wouldn’t expect to find in the Bible distinctions drawn between multiple divine persons, this is just what would be expected on Trinitarian assumptions.
The first verse of John’s Gospel is a good illustration of the point. According to John’s Gospel:
When we turn to the Old Testament passages that speak of the Angel of the Lord, we find that they upset and over-topple unitarian expectations in exactly the same way. They do so by identifying the Angel as God while at the same time distinguishing Him from another person who is identified as God. Consider as an example the first occasion in the Bible where this phrase is used – Genesis 16, which recounts what happened after Hagar fled from Sarai.
In the first place, the phrase “the angel of the LORD”, as well as the fact that the Angel speaks of the LORD in the third person in verse eleven (“…the LORD has given heed to your affliction”), seems clearly to distinguish the Angel from “the LORD”.
Secondly, at the same time, this same passage also identifies the Angel as LORD. Not only does the Angel issue imperatives to Hagar and conduct the whole conversation with an air of authority that exudes divinity, but the Angel promises that He will do the same thing for her that God promised to do for Abraham through Sarah, saying, “I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.”
Finally, while all of this may be lost on those who think Muhammad was a descendant of Hagar, it wasn’t lost on Hagar herself, for “Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees’; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?”
Passing over the mention of the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 21:8-20, where similar observations could be made, what is said in Genesis 22 about the Angel of the Lord is particularly instructive. After Abraham goes to the place where God commanded him to take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice, we read:
That He is distinct from God is evident once again by his very title, i.e. the Angel of the LORD, as well as by the fact that he speaks in verse twelve of God in the third person (“Now I know that you fear God”).
That He is also God is evident not only from the fact that He speaks as God (“…you have not withheld from Me your only son…” [vs. 12]; “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky [vs. 17]; and “…because you have obeyed Me” [vs. 18]), but because of what it pointedly says in verses 15-16: “The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear BY MYSELF, declares the LORD,…”
In terms of the unitarian/Trinitarian debate, only Trinitarianism is consistent both with the fact that the Angel is distinguished from God and the fact that He speaks as God and is identified as God in the above (and many other) passages.
Yahya’s failure to understand all this is openly exposed in his response to virtually every one of the passages from Sam he tries to deal with. He somehow thinks the mere fact that the Angel is distinct from another person called God proves that He cannot also be God.
For example, Yahya says Zechariah 1:12-13 “shows the angel of the Lord communicating with God; the angel asks God a question and God answers the angel. Clearly this passage shows the angel not to be God as they are clearly shown to be distinct entities.”
He does the same thing with Numbers 22:31, saying:
To begin with, it should be remembered that unitarianism as opposed to Trinitarianism is the view that God is a uni-personal rather than a tri-personal being. Islamic Tawheed is one (and the worst) of many versions of the former; Christianity uniquely proclaims the latter.
This is important to keep in mind for the following reason: whereas on unitarian assumptions one wouldn’t expect to find in the Bible distinctions drawn between multiple divine persons, this is just what would be expected on Trinitarian assumptions.
The first verse of John’s Gospel is a good illustration of the point. According to John’s Gospel:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”If the author of this passage was a unitarian, it would not be surprising for him to say “the Word was with God”, which he in fact does. But it also wouldn’t be surprising on Trinitarian assumptions, for Trinitarians also believe the Word was with God. However, that is not all the passage says; it also tells us “the Word was God”. This additional statement changes everything for the unitarian, but the Trinitarian is left unaffected by it: it is exactly what would be expected if the author of this passage was Trinitarian. And just as it would be incredibly inept for a unitarian to reply, “But the passage could not teach that the Word was God, because he could not be God and be with God at the same time”, since this is just what Trinitarians believe and is precisely what the passage says, so it would also be incredibly inept for a unitarian to approach similar phenomena in the Old Testament in the same way, as we will in fact find in the case of Yahya’s would-be rebuttal.
When we turn to the Old Testament passages that speak of the Angel of the Lord, we find that they upset and over-topple unitarian expectations in exactly the same way. They do so by identifying the Angel as God while at the same time distinguishing Him from another person who is identified as God. Consider as an example the first occasion in the Bible where this phrase is used – Genesis 16, which recounts what happened after Hagar fled from Sarai.
Now the angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, by the spring on the way to Shur. He said, "Hagar, Sarai's maid, where have you come from and where are you going?" And she said, "I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai." Then the angel of the LORD said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit yourself to her authority." Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count." The angel of the LORD said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, and you will bear a son; and you shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has given heed to your affliction." He will be a wild donkey of a man, his hand will be against everyone, and everyone's hand will be against him; and he will live to the east of all his brothers." Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?"Since Yahya believes Muhammad was a descendant of Hagar through her son Ishmael, he should pay particular attention to what this passage says (and not just the later verses in the passage that say Ishmael will be a wild donkey of a man).
In the first place, the phrase “the angel of the LORD”, as well as the fact that the Angel speaks of the LORD in the third person in verse eleven (“…the LORD has given heed to your affliction”), seems clearly to distinguish the Angel from “the LORD”.
Secondly, at the same time, this same passage also identifies the Angel as LORD. Not only does the Angel issue imperatives to Hagar and conduct the whole conversation with an air of authority that exudes divinity, but the Angel promises that He will do the same thing for her that God promised to do for Abraham through Sarah, saying, “I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count.”
Finally, while all of this may be lost on those who think Muhammad was a descendant of Hagar, it wasn’t lost on Hagar herself, for “Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, ‘You are a God who sees’; for she said, “Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?”
Passing over the mention of the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 21:8-20, where similar observations could be made, what is said in Genesis 22 about the Angel of the Lord is particularly instructive. After Abraham goes to the place where God commanded him to take Isaac and offer him as a sacrifice, we read:
When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided." The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."As in Genesis 16, this passage at once distinguishes the Angel from God and identifies Him as God.
That He is distinct from God is evident once again by his very title, i.e. the Angel of the LORD, as well as by the fact that he speaks in verse twelve of God in the third person (“Now I know that you fear God”).
That He is also God is evident not only from the fact that He speaks as God (“…you have not withheld from Me your only son…” [vs. 12]; “I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky [vs. 17]; and “…because you have obeyed Me” [vs. 18]), but because of what it pointedly says in verses 15-16: “The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear BY MYSELF, declares the LORD,…”
In terms of the unitarian/Trinitarian debate, only Trinitarianism is consistent both with the fact that the Angel is distinguished from God and the fact that He speaks as God and is identified as God in the above (and many other) passages.
Yahya’s failure to understand all this is openly exposed in his response to virtually every one of the passages from Sam he tries to deal with. He somehow thinks the mere fact that the Angel is distinct from another person called God proves that He cannot also be God.
For example, Yahya says Zechariah 1:12-13 “shows the angel of the Lord communicating with God; the angel asks God a question and God answers the angel. Clearly this passage shows the angel not to be God as they are clearly shown to be distinct entities.”
He does the same thing with Numbers 22:31, saying:
“Shamoun fails to look further down in the chapter; after this event, the author identifies this angel as “the angel of the Lord” and not as “God” or “the Lord” (22:32 and 35) thus showing the author (said to be Moses) did not believe this angel to be God…”We get more of the same on Zechariah 3:1-2:
"If you read further on in the chapter, the angel actually speaks and the author said to be Zechariah) identifies the angel as “the angel”. Surely if the angel was the Lord it would have been addressed as “the Lord” rather than “the angel”. So we notice the author draws a distinction between “the angel” and “the Lord”, thus to two cannot be the same!.... Essentially, Zechariah does not claim the angel to be God but draws a distinction showing the two are not the same."And Zechariah 3:4:
On Exodus 23:20, Yahya says:
"Shamoun misses another verse in this chapter which proves that this angel is simply an agent of God and not God himself, verse 6 shows the angel QUOTING the Lord and delivering the Lord’s message by saying “this is what the Lord Almighty says:…"
“Thus we realise God sends the angel, therefore the angel cannot possibly be God! Shamoun misses this as this clearly shows this angel is not God!”….All of this completely misses the point at issue, for in each of the passages where the Angel is distinguished from God He is also identified as God, showing that the prophetic authors were not unitarians. In effect, what Yahya is doing is reading his unitarian assumptions into the text rather than taking everything the texts say into account to see if they are consistent with everything unitarianism predicts we should find. Since Yahya assumes that God is uni-personal, any passage that distinguishes God from the Angel automatically rules out the divinity of the Angel as a matter of “pure logic”, as Yahya said in one of the quotes above. But it only follows logically if Yahya’s starting assumption, i.e. God is uni-personal, is true. Only if that assumption is true does the conclusion that the angel is not God follow from the observation that the Angel is distinguished from God. But Yahya’s starting assumption is the very point at issue, and this means that all of Yahya’s arguments on this score commit the fallacy of begging the question and reasoning in a circle, something we have seen from him before (here).
“Clearly, in this passage, God sends the angel and speaks of the angel as a separate being (a creation of God). This angel is sent BY God, thus cannot possibly be God. Pure logic! Shamoun misses the verse and misses the logic due to his desperation to convince us of his personal beliefs.”
“The fact that God speaks of this angel as a distinct entity should be enough to realise that this angel is not God.”
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Debunking the Qur'an and Modern Science: The Expansion of the Earth
In my rebuttal of numerous speculative assertions of modern miracles discovered in the Qur’an we are going to refute a fairly common interpretation (of typical conjecture) of Sura 79: 30.
Osama Abdallah and other Islamic speculators have asserted that Sura 79: 30 predicts a modern theory of the global expansion of the earth.
The passage reads:
'And after that He spread the earth (Wal'arda ba'da dhalika da-ha-ha)'
Another translation reads:
'And the earth moreover hath he expanded'
The interpretation of Osama Abdallah and others is found here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/egg-shaped_earth.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNfvO_FcGC8
The idea is as some scientists postulate that the globe itself expanded to almost the double of its size which caused the separation of the present continents.
Notice that the article of Answering-Christianity and its egg-shape claim is of the speculative type and involves incredible conjecture and has been effectively debunked by the Answering-Islam team:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/earth_egg.html
My focus here is mainly on the claim of Osama’s page that the Qur’an is miracolous in its claim that the earth has expanded.
Firstly, however, the claim that the reference is to the actual expansion of the earth is not entirely verified, in fact early respectable Islamic commentaries, such as Tafsir al-jalalayn would not agree with the proposition of Osama’s website. This is what we read in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
‘...and after that He spread out the earth: He made it flat, for it had been created before the heaven, but without having been spread out;’
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=79&tAyahNo=30&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
Hence according to Jalalayn the passage describes the spreading of the earth, a description also found in the Bible and which Muslims are quick to describe as the earth’s flatness; hence in all fairness Muslim apologists by attacking the Bible have concluded that the Qur’an itself describes the earth to be flat. But lets leave this matter for now.
Our brother Sam Shamoun and written an excellent detailed article on the matter of Sura 79: 30 and its description:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/whale_nun.htm
But lets assume for a moment that Osama’s website is correct in its interpretation, would this provide evidence that the Qur’an is miracolous?
Not really!
The idea that the earth expanded was well known long before the arise of Islam. Eusebius of Caesarea recorded some centuries prior to Islam that Democritus the Greek philospher believed that the earth changed its place in the stellar system due to its growth, density and increase of weight (Tr. E.H. Gifford, Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Chapter LVIII----Of the Earth’s motion, book 15: 1903: 849)
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_15_book15.htm
Read more:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/04/refuting-quranic-science-expansion-of.html
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
Osama Abdallah and other Islamic speculators have asserted that Sura 79: 30 predicts a modern theory of the global expansion of the earth.
The passage reads:
'And after that He spread the earth (Wal'arda ba'da dhalika da-ha-ha)'
Another translation reads:
'And the earth moreover hath he expanded'
The interpretation of Osama Abdallah and others is found here:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/egg-shaped_earth.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNfvO_FcGC8
The idea is as some scientists postulate that the globe itself expanded to almost the double of its size which caused the separation of the present continents.
Notice that the article of Answering-Christianity and its egg-shape claim is of the speculative type and involves incredible conjecture and has been effectively debunked by the Answering-Islam team:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Science/earth_egg.html
My focus here is mainly on the claim of Osama’s page that the Qur’an is miracolous in its claim that the earth has expanded.
Firstly, however, the claim that the reference is to the actual expansion of the earth is not entirely verified, in fact early respectable Islamic commentaries, such as Tafsir al-jalalayn would not agree with the proposition of Osama’s website. This is what we read in the Tafsir al-Jalalayn:
‘...and after that He spread out the earth: He made it flat, for it had been created before the heaven, but without having been spread out;’
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=79&tAyahNo=30&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
Hence according to Jalalayn the passage describes the spreading of the earth, a description also found in the Bible and which Muslims are quick to describe as the earth’s flatness; hence in all fairness Muslim apologists by attacking the Bible have concluded that the Qur’an itself describes the earth to be flat. But lets leave this matter for now.
Our brother Sam Shamoun and written an excellent detailed article on the matter of Sura 79: 30 and its description:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/whale_nun.htm
But lets assume for a moment that Osama’s website is correct in its interpretation, would this provide evidence that the Qur’an is miracolous?
Not really!
The idea that the earth expanded was well known long before the arise of Islam. Eusebius of Caesarea recorded some centuries prior to Islam that Democritus the Greek philospher believed that the earth changed its place in the stellar system due to its growth, density and increase of weight (Tr. E.H. Gifford, Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), Chapter LVIII----Of the Earth’s motion, book 15: 1903: 849)
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_15_book15.htm
Read more:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/04/refuting-quranic-science-expansion-of.html
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Yahya, Dream On
It's official; Yahya Snow has declined my debate challenge. Apparently he is too busy proving Islam in his dreams (pun intended) than to engage the topic of whether the Old Testament teaches the Trinity or Islamic Tawheed.
When I originally challenged Yahya to debate the Trinity in the Old Testament I considered it a win-win proposition: if he accepted my challenge, I knew he had less chance of vindicating his thesis than a snowball has in Hades; and if he declined my challenge, it would confirm my claim that his antics are tell-tale signs that he does not have confidence that Islam can prevail in the arena of open public debate unless certain underhanded tactics are employed.
In playing apologist the way he does he has chosen to make the history of Islam his own history: just like Islam did not spread as far and wide as it has through spiritual and rational means, so likewise Yahya does not believe in his personal ability (or responsibility) to prove Islam in such a way. Yahya is a living illustration of the fact that Islam is a religion of the flesh and not of God's Spirit:
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
Muslims like Yahya are worldlings; when not literally spreading Islam by the sword they resort to hacking and hewing debates and engaging in heavy-handed, freedom-squelching tactics like censorship to keep others from exposing them.
Of course not all Muslims are exactly like Yahya, and there are some who would readily take up the challenge to debate an issue like this, just like Farhan Qureshi did against Sam Shamoun; but then those of us who saw the whole debate between Farhan and Sam, no thanks to Yahya, know how that would turn out.
[Even though we didn't get to debate the issue as I would have preferred, I did write an opening statement in anticipation of the possibility that Yahya would follow through with the debate. Since the Snow(man) has officially given me the cold shoulder, I reworked my opening statement into an article, which can be found here: The Trinity in the Old Testament: A Brief Summary of the Evidence.]
When I originally challenged Yahya to debate the Trinity in the Old Testament I considered it a win-win proposition: if he accepted my challenge, I knew he had less chance of vindicating his thesis than a snowball has in Hades; and if he declined my challenge, it would confirm my claim that his antics are tell-tale signs that he does not have confidence that Islam can prevail in the arena of open public debate unless certain underhanded tactics are employed.
In playing apologist the way he does he has chosen to make the history of Islam his own history: just like Islam did not spread as far and wide as it has through spiritual and rational means, so likewise Yahya does not believe in his personal ability (or responsibility) to prove Islam in such a way. Yahya is a living illustration of the fact that Islam is a religion of the flesh and not of God's Spirit:
"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5)
Muslims like Yahya are worldlings; when not literally spreading Islam by the sword they resort to hacking and hewing debates and engaging in heavy-handed, freedom-squelching tactics like censorship to keep others from exposing them.
Of course not all Muslims are exactly like Yahya, and there are some who would readily take up the challenge to debate an issue like this, just like Farhan Qureshi did against Sam Shamoun; but then those of us who saw the whole debate between Farhan and Sam, no thanks to Yahya, know how that would turn out.
[Even though we didn't get to debate the issue as I would have preferred, I did write an opening statement in anticipation of the possibility that Yahya would follow through with the debate. Since the Snow(man) has officially given me the cold shoulder, I reworked my opening statement into an article, which can be found here: The Trinity in the Old Testament: A Brief Summary of the Evidence.]
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Response to the Muslim 'Hello' on Early Qur'anic Plagiarism of Pre-Islamic Sources
I have received numerous comments and rebuttals from a Muslim who calls himself 'hello' on my blog dealing with the Qur'an and Science:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
'Hello' has written a lot of insulting comments and challenged me to respond to his points (which unfortunately as the reader will notice are both weak and insignificant).
I have written a lengthy rebuttal to several of his comments on my assessment of the Qur'an and plagiarism of pre-Islamic sources:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html
I don't bother posting the entire response here as it is lengthy, but I will leave you with a few lines and the link:
My Rebuttal
This article is lengthy response to a 'Hello', a Muslim who has posted numerous rebuttals against me on this blog.
Unfortunately Hello resorts to insults of Christians and calls my articles poor and unscholarly, he also satisfies himself to heap up claim upon claim while he continually depends upon Islamic websites.
He even has the courage to contradict himself to suggest that I do not dare to respond back and if I do I will simply cite websites. As the reader will see, I dare to respond and my response is not depended upon websites.
Furthermore, Hello encourages me to utilize secular sources in my study of the Bible, which to his information, I have already done for years, however Hello laughs and despises the secular sources I have utilized upon the study of the Qur'an---yeah what type of a twisted mindset are we dealing with here.
(Hello has also challenged me to respond to a number of questions related to Bible integrity. I will respond to those elsewhere, I guess on the Apologetics blog, since this blog primarily focuses on the science in the Qur'an)
I would not say that Hello has written anything of significance, or at least anything that challenges the accuracy of my articles, hence my replies hardly require very detailed information.
Ok lets begin
Hello said...
Ok, can you name the Greek philosopher Muhammad(saw) interacted with? Can you produce a chapter like the Quran?
Hogan replies:
I never stated that a Greek Philosopher guided Muhammad in Qur’anic material, I quoted Bukhari one of your earliest and most reliable sources, in which a Christian who converted to Islam and helped Muhammad write the Qur’an later turned back to Christianity and stated that he and Muhammad fabricated the Qur’an together.
(read the entire response here:)
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/response-to-muslim-hello-concerning.html
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
'Hello' has written a lot of insulting comments and challenged me to respond to his points (which unfortunately as the reader will notice are both weak and insignificant).
I have written a lengthy rebuttal to several of his comments on my assessment of the Qur'an and plagiarism of pre-Islamic sources:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/01/did-quranic-authors-borrow-information.html
I don't bother posting the entire response here as it is lengthy, but I will leave you with a few lines and the link:
My Rebuttal
This article is lengthy response to a 'Hello', a Muslim who has posted numerous rebuttals against me on this blog.
Unfortunately Hello resorts to insults of Christians and calls my articles poor and unscholarly, he also satisfies himself to heap up claim upon claim while he continually depends upon Islamic websites.
He even has the courage to contradict himself to suggest that I do not dare to respond back and if I do I will simply cite websites. As the reader will see, I dare to respond and my response is not depended upon websites.
Furthermore, Hello encourages me to utilize secular sources in my study of the Bible, which to his information, I have already done for years, however Hello laughs and despises the secular sources I have utilized upon the study of the Qur'an---yeah what type of a twisted mindset are we dealing with here.
(Hello has also challenged me to respond to a number of questions related to Bible integrity. I will respond to those elsewhere, I guess on the Apologetics blog, since this blog primarily focuses on the science in the Qur'an)
I would not say that Hello has written anything of significance, or at least anything that challenges the accuracy of my articles, hence my replies hardly require very detailed information.
Ok lets begin
Hello said...
Ok, can you name the Greek philosopher Muhammad(saw) interacted with? Can you produce a chapter like the Quran?
Hogan replies:
I never stated that a Greek Philosopher guided Muhammad in Qur’anic material, I quoted Bukhari one of your earliest and most reliable sources, in which a Christian who converted to Islam and helped Muhammad write the Qur’an later turned back to Christianity and stated that he and Muhammad fabricated the Qur’an together.
(read the entire response here:)
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/03/response-to-muslim-hello-concerning.html
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Muslim Logic Exemplified by Yahya Snow
Muslims believe that Muhammad was the best person to ever live; many of us demur, and would cite as proof, among many other things, the fact that Muhammad hit his wife, Aisha.
In response to the claim that Muhammad hit Aisha, Muslim Yahya Snow, in a display of impeccable "logic", offers the following argument:
One of the ironies of this is that one of the Islamic sources that support the claim that Muhammad physically assaulted Aisha, Sahih Muslim (Book 004, #2127), indirectly tells us that Aisha herself did not assume the question begging premise that is critical for Yahya's circle to get all the way around.
Of course Aisha may well have suppressed or quelled her doubts about Muhammad's impeccable character after being struck by him (and according to the above Hadith she was struck by him), but this only reminds us that getting hit in the chest by a man can be as persuasive to some women as reasoning in a circle can be to some Muslims.
In response to the claim that Muhammad hit Aisha, Muslim Yahya Snow, in a display of impeccable "logic", offers the following argument:
Indeed Muhammad taught that the best of you are those who do not hit their wives and Muhammad was the best of them, thus we realise Muhammad indirectly told us he never hit his wives.But this would only be indirect evidence that Muhammad never hit Aisha if we already know in advance that Muhammad "was the best of them". But this is just what many of us are trying to get at when we look at the evidence that Muhammad hit Aisha. In other words, Yahya is assuming in advance what has to be proven, which is just to say he is reasoning in a circle.
One of the ironies of this is that one of the Islamic sources that support the claim that Muhammad physically assaulted Aisha, Sahih Muslim (Book 004, #2127), indirectly tells us that Aisha herself did not assume the question begging premise that is critical for Yahya's circle to get all the way around.
Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people): Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was 'A'isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi'. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came(to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet)entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O 'A'isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi' (to those lying in the graves)and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of his city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have ercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you.Muhammad's question to Aisha indirectly supports the idea that she did not assume, in advance of the incident in question, that Muhammad was the best of people, since the very idea that someone is "the best of you people" would surely entail that such a person would not deal unjustly with others. Muhammad's question to Aisha implies that she doubted that Muhammad would not deal unjustly with her, which in turn means she did not have unshakeable confidence in the idea that Muhammad was "the best of you people". (Of course one may argue that Aisha did not assume what Muhammad's question implies, but then in that case Muhammad assumed something bad about Aisha that wasn't true, which refutes the premise in another way).
Of course Aisha may well have suppressed or quelled her doubts about Muhammad's impeccable character after being struck by him (and according to the above Hadith she was struck by him), but this only reminds us that getting hit in the chest by a man can be as persuasive to some women as reasoning in a circle can be to some Muslims.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Sam and David on "Jesus or Muhammad" this Weekend!
It's that time again. Sam and I will be on three episodes of "Jesus or Muhammad" this weekend. If you don't get the satellite channel, you can watch online here (click on the "Watch Live" button). Be sure to tune in!
Saturday, March 20th
11:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
Sunday, March 21st
8:00 P.M.
11:00 P.M.
Saturday, March 20th
11:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
Sunday, March 21st
8:00 P.M.
11:00 P.M.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
David on "Iron Sharpens Iron" Tonight
Tonight on "Iron Sharpens Iron," we'll be discussing Nujood Ali's book "I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced." You can listen via live streaming here at 6:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (the program right before ISI is in Spanish). For those of you in the NY area, you can tune in to WNYG 1440 AM.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
David Wood vs. John W. Loftus: Does God Exist?
Not really on the topic of Islam, but since Christians and Muslims are all interested in this question, here you go.
Opening Statements
1st Rebuttals
Cross Examination, 2nd Rebuttals, Conclusions
Opening Statements
1st Rebuttals
Cross Examination, 2nd Rebuttals, Conclusions
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Jesus or Muhammad on ABN Wednesday (March 10th)
It's that time again. I'll be on "News and Views" and "Jesus or Muhammad" with Pastor Joseph on ABN tomorrow (Wednesday). Here's the schedule.
6:00 P.M.-7:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
"News and Views"
10:30 P.M.-12:15 A.M.
"Jesus or Muhammad?"
12:30 A.M.-1:30 A.M.
"Rapid Fire"
(I know many of you miss Sam; he's scheduled to return for our shows on March 20th-21st.)
6:00 P.M.-7:30 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time)
"News and Views"
10:30 P.M.-12:15 A.M.
"Jesus or Muhammad?"
12:30 A.M.-1:30 A.M.
"Rapid Fire"
(I know many of you miss Sam; he's scheduled to return for our shows on March 20th-21st.)
Monday, March 8, 2010
Exposing Barakah: A rhetoric interrogation by Barakah on Pal-talk’s: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’.
On 5 March I was contacted by a Christian debater from Pal Talk and after a little chat I decided to journey through a number of rooms on the Social issues.
One particular room of interest was the Islamic room: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and not Oppressed’, which was administrated by an Arabic female Muslim with a French accent, by the name ‘Barakah’ whom I (after 30 minutes experience on the chat room) deem to be a psycho.
As far as I know the name 'Barakah' means blessing, however, the experience was closer to a curse.
I entered the room ‘Muslim Women are Respected not Oppressed’ stayed for a little while whereupon I left a link to a Christian site before entering another room. Leaving a link seemed reasonable to me since it did not seem to be prohibited. After a minute, Barakah virtually hunts me down on pal-talk, sending me at least 15 notifications and a private message.
In the private message Barakah through rather intimidated wordings challenged me to be brave enough to dare enter the room again where she threatened to publically expose me and my religion. It was quite obvious from her wordings that I would be considered a coward unless I acted upon her command.
It was also perfectly obvious to me that entering the ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’ room, meant entering a room full of Muslims, with debate based upon violent insult, intimidation and Muslim rhetoric including an admin that would continually victimize me by red doting by blocking my text and muting my voice.
After a few minutes I nevertheless decided to take the risk and give the Muslim female debater a chance.
I quickly realised that my expectation of the room were far from exaggerated. Barakah made it very clear that she did not care about me or my religion, or my answers or explanation; in fact she claimed openly that as a Christian I simply had no answers and nothing worth saying, so I could simply spare myself the effort.
So now I was getting really confused, she had called me back into the room to defend my faith, yet after meeting her challenge and being brave (according to her mentality) and entering the room I am immediately informed by her and the room that they have already presupposed that as a Christian I should not be listened to.
This was turning out to get really funny.
Well I still decided to give her a chance.
After several minutes of abuse and rhetoric (only God knows what I had to put up with) she finally asked me to come to the mic and show the room ‘where Jesus says he is God’. I had a good answer to her question, but I refused to enter a debate that reminded about an interrogation (I know that Muslims tend to like it this way, my own experience is an excellent example). I am indeed happy to debate or dialogue, yet if Muslims think that I am or consider myself a ‘dhimmi’ like the Christians they suppress in their own Muslim nations (and from whom they mentally drain all confidence and personal pride), they will quickly find themselves very offended.
Rather than letting Barakah interrogate me and decide my wordings. I asked for five minutes to explain this question but I never got that far; after only 15 seconds I was muted. Barakah came back on the mic and insulted me for being unable to answer and scared to deal with the issue whereupon she challenged me to take the mic again and answer her question.
Again I only managed to speak on the mic for 10 seconds, without being allowed to answer the question. I got muted as before by Barakah, who again resorted to insult my personality, religion and had the audacity to claim again and again that I was a coward. She had even blocked my writing to unable my comments to her insults and abuse.
She challenged me a third time to take the mic and answer her question.
By this time it was clear that this was not a debate or a dialogue but a rhetorical conversation in which I was being interrogated and yet not permitted to answer. This was abuse, intimidation, manipulation a joke. She stated time and time again that she had no interest in my answer and explanation, that it was simply a waste of her time.
The third time I elaborated on the word ‘coward’, this time I literally called her a coward, after all she was the one being too scared to engage me in a proper dialogue without continually red dotting me after 10 seconds and muting my answers. I pointed out that I probably was the only Christian in a room of 60 Muslims who continuously abused my character and religion, muted my answers and blocked my writings; this whole scenario was literally ridiculous.
At this point Barakah accused me of insult (yeah try imagine) and continually called me a coward and chicken for not sharing in her rhetoric games (all I had asked for was for me to answer her question in my own way; but Barakah insisted that my answer would be a waste of time).
I was allowed to the mic a fourth time, this time I challenged Barakah for a proper the debate on any subject but under a different admin, an admin would that play fair games; but Barakah (this blessing of Allah does not like fair games) as before I was muted within 15 seconds. In fact I had already challenged Barakah to debate me properly prior to this, even in writing.
This obviously made Barakah go crazy, I guess the Muslim listeners began realizing that she was running away from a challenge, and she muted me as before, called me a coward and heaped upon me insult upon insult.
I even apologized if I had come on against her too strongly or if she had found me insulting her, and again I asked respectfully if she was interested in debating me under a proper debate format and a fair admin (yeah imagine I even humbled myself to that level).
This dialogue (if we can call it a dialogue) went on for 30-40 minutes, I went on the mic probably ten times, asking her to debate me formally, and every time being red dotted after 10-15 seconds whereup I was insulted and intimidated to every possible length and at the same time prohibited from writing.
Finally I had enough and left.
I have to say that the experience reminded me of my early days in Birmingham, being encircled by 10-20 Muslims and being bombarded with questions and arguments without being given the opportunity to answer.
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html
In fact most Muslims I have encountered in debate and dialogue are not interested in the Christian answering, either due to the ‘dhimmi’ mentality or because they are scared to listen and particularly scared of the answers or objections raised by the opponents (possibly both).
Barakah seems to have all the questions but to dread the answers and the contra attack against her faith.
I would advise Christians not willingly to submit themselves to chat rooms or individuals who resort to such behaviour or rhetoric methods. Yet my challenge to Barakah remains, I am more than willing to meet her in a proper debate with a pre-planned format under an admin which will act fairly toward both of us.
The impression I had of Barakah is: she knew that in a proper debate against me and without her administrative authority to reddot and mute her opponents, her arguments and her faith would have been ripped into pieces (she knew that); hence the reddot was and is her only protection.
However, I seem not to be the only one having experienced the desperately antagonising behaviour of Barakah; here is another example from Youtube (but it reveals far from the level of antagonizing behaviour I experienced from Barakah):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqbRizFjjQk
My only conclusion after 40 minutes on her chat room is: despite her admin authority and the reddot she was hiding behind this female Muslim debater was in reality on the run.
One particular room of interest was the Islamic room: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and not Oppressed’, which was administrated by an Arabic female Muslim with a French accent, by the name ‘Barakah’ whom I (after 30 minutes experience on the chat room) deem to be a psycho.
As far as I know the name 'Barakah' means blessing, however, the experience was closer to a curse.
I entered the room ‘Muslim Women are Respected not Oppressed’ stayed for a little while whereupon I left a link to a Christian site before entering another room. Leaving a link seemed reasonable to me since it did not seem to be prohibited. After a minute, Barakah virtually hunts me down on pal-talk, sending me at least 15 notifications and a private message.
In the private message Barakah through rather intimidated wordings challenged me to be brave enough to dare enter the room again where she threatened to publically expose me and my religion. It was quite obvious from her wordings that I would be considered a coward unless I acted upon her command.
It was also perfectly obvious to me that entering the ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’ room, meant entering a room full of Muslims, with debate based upon violent insult, intimidation and Muslim rhetoric including an admin that would continually victimize me by red doting by blocking my text and muting my voice.
After a few minutes I nevertheless decided to take the risk and give the Muslim female debater a chance.
I quickly realised that my expectation of the room were far from exaggerated. Barakah made it very clear that she did not care about me or my religion, or my answers or explanation; in fact she claimed openly that as a Christian I simply had no answers and nothing worth saying, so I could simply spare myself the effort.
So now I was getting really confused, she had called me back into the room to defend my faith, yet after meeting her challenge and being brave (according to her mentality) and entering the room I am immediately informed by her and the room that they have already presupposed that as a Christian I should not be listened to.
This was turning out to get really funny.
Well I still decided to give her a chance.
After several minutes of abuse and rhetoric (only God knows what I had to put up with) she finally asked me to come to the mic and show the room ‘where Jesus says he is God’. I had a good answer to her question, but I refused to enter a debate that reminded about an interrogation (I know that Muslims tend to like it this way, my own experience is an excellent example). I am indeed happy to debate or dialogue, yet if Muslims think that I am or consider myself a ‘dhimmi’ like the Christians they suppress in their own Muslim nations (and from whom they mentally drain all confidence and personal pride), they will quickly find themselves very offended.
Rather than letting Barakah interrogate me and decide my wordings. I asked for five minutes to explain this question but I never got that far; after only 15 seconds I was muted. Barakah came back on the mic and insulted me for being unable to answer and scared to deal with the issue whereupon she challenged me to take the mic again and answer her question.
Again I only managed to speak on the mic for 10 seconds, without being allowed to answer the question. I got muted as before by Barakah, who again resorted to insult my personality, religion and had the audacity to claim again and again that I was a coward. She had even blocked my writing to unable my comments to her insults and abuse.
She challenged me a third time to take the mic and answer her question.
By this time it was clear that this was not a debate or a dialogue but a rhetorical conversation in which I was being interrogated and yet not permitted to answer. This was abuse, intimidation, manipulation a joke. She stated time and time again that she had no interest in my answer and explanation, that it was simply a waste of her time.
The third time I elaborated on the word ‘coward’, this time I literally called her a coward, after all she was the one being too scared to engage me in a proper dialogue without continually red dotting me after 10 seconds and muting my answers. I pointed out that I probably was the only Christian in a room of 60 Muslims who continuously abused my character and religion, muted my answers and blocked my writings; this whole scenario was literally ridiculous.
At this point Barakah accused me of insult (yeah try imagine) and continually called me a coward and chicken for not sharing in her rhetoric games (all I had asked for was for me to answer her question in my own way; but Barakah insisted that my answer would be a waste of time).
I was allowed to the mic a fourth time, this time I challenged Barakah for a proper the debate on any subject but under a different admin, an admin would that play fair games; but Barakah (this blessing of Allah does not like fair games) as before I was muted within 15 seconds. In fact I had already challenged Barakah to debate me properly prior to this, even in writing.
This obviously made Barakah go crazy, I guess the Muslim listeners began realizing that she was running away from a challenge, and she muted me as before, called me a coward and heaped upon me insult upon insult.
I even apologized if I had come on against her too strongly or if she had found me insulting her, and again I asked respectfully if she was interested in debating me under a proper debate format and a fair admin (yeah imagine I even humbled myself to that level).
This dialogue (if we can call it a dialogue) went on for 30-40 minutes, I went on the mic probably ten times, asking her to debate me formally, and every time being red dotted after 10-15 seconds whereup I was insulted and intimidated to every possible length and at the same time prohibited from writing.
Finally I had enough and left.
I have to say that the experience reminded me of my early days in Birmingham, being encircled by 10-20 Muslims and being bombarded with questions and arguments without being given the opportunity to answer.
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-am-christian-apologist_31.html
In fact most Muslims I have encountered in debate and dialogue are not interested in the Christian answering, either due to the ‘dhimmi’ mentality or because they are scared to listen and particularly scared of the answers or objections raised by the opponents (possibly both).
Barakah seems to have all the questions but to dread the answers and the contra attack against her faith.
I would advise Christians not willingly to submit themselves to chat rooms or individuals who resort to such behaviour or rhetoric methods. Yet my challenge to Barakah remains, I am more than willing to meet her in a proper debate with a pre-planned format under an admin which will act fairly toward both of us.
The impression I had of Barakah is: she knew that in a proper debate against me and without her administrative authority to reddot and mute her opponents, her arguments and her faith would have been ripped into pieces (she knew that); hence the reddot was and is her only protection.
However, I seem not to be the only one having experienced the desperately antagonising behaviour of Barakah; here is another example from Youtube (but it reveals far from the level of antagonizing behaviour I experienced from Barakah):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqbRizFjjQk
My only conclusion after 40 minutes on her chat room is: despite her admin authority and the reddot she was hiding behind this female Muslim debater was in reality on the run.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
American-Born Convert to Islam (and Terrorist) Azzam al-Amriki (i.e. Adam Gadahn) Captured
Well-rounded American boy (and former goat-farmer) Adam Gadahn converted to Islam several years ago, and he somehow got the idea that Islam commands him to fight non-Muslims (perhaps he's thinking of verses like Surah 9:29, which explicitly commands Muslims to fight non-Muslims, though it must mean something else, since Islam is peaceful). Recently, he released a new tape calling for American Muslims to follow the example of Major Nidal Malik Hasan and attack American targets. (Apparently, he didn't get Abdullah al-Andalusi's memo saying that Muslims, instead of following the example of Muhammad, will have to renounce U.S. citizenship before waging Jihad against America.)
Fortunately, this young terrorist has been captured.
Since Islam is peaceful, we should expect Muslims around the world to be cheering in the streets when they hear that another misrepresenter of Islam has been captured. Indeed, we should expect cheering that will surpass the demonstrations that took place after 9-11.
PREDICTION: No matter how Gadahn is treated in custody, I predict he will complain that he's being tortured.
*****UPDATE***** There appears to be some confusion among reporters as to the identity of the man arrested. Some are reporting that Gadahn was arrested, while others are saying that Abu Yahya Azam (a different American terrorist) was arrested.
CAIRO – Al-Qaida's American-born spokesman on Sunday called on Muslims serving in the U.S. armed forces to emulate the Army major charged with killing 13 people in Fort Hood.
In a 25-minute video posted on militant Web sites, Adam Gadahn described Maj. Nidal Hasan as a pioneer who should serve as a role model for other Muslims, especially those serving Western militaries.
"Brother Nidal is the ideal role-model for every repentant Muslim in the armies of the unbelievers and apostate regimes," he said. Read more.
Fortunately, this young terrorist has been captured.
KARACHI, Pakistan - Adam Yahiye Gadahn, a U.S.-born spokesman for al-Qaida, has been captured in Pakistan, government sources said Sunday. . . .
A U.S. court charged Gadahn with treason in 2006, making him the first American to face such a charge in more than 50 years. He could face the death penalty if convicted. He was also charged with two counts of providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.
Gadahn, 31, grew up on a goat farm in Riverside County, Calif., and converted to Islam at a mosque in nearby Orange County. . . .
Al-Qaida has used Gadahn as its chief English-speaking spokesman, and he has called for the destruction of the West and for strikes against targets in the United States. In one video, he ceremoniously tore up his American passport. In another, he admitted his grandfather was Jewish, ridiculing him for his beliefs and calling for Palestinians to continue fighting Israel. . . .
In the latest video, Gadahn said those planning attacks did not need to use only firearms like Hasan, but could use other weapons. "As the blessed operations of September 11th showed, a little imagination and planning and a limited budget can turn almost anything into a deadly, effective and convenient weapon."
Gadahn said fighters should target mass transportation systems in the West and also wreak havoc "by killing or capturing people in government, industry and the media."
He recommended finding ways to shake "consumer confidence and stifle spending" and noted that even unsuccessful attacks, such as the failed attempt to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, can bring major cities to a halt. Read more.
Since Islam is peaceful, we should expect Muslims around the world to be cheering in the streets when they hear that another misrepresenter of Islam has been captured. Indeed, we should expect cheering that will surpass the demonstrations that took place after 9-11.
PREDICTION: No matter how Gadahn is treated in custody, I predict he will complain that he's being tortured.
*****UPDATE***** There appears to be some confusion among reporters as to the identity of the man arrested. Some are reporting that Gadahn was arrested, while others are saying that Abu Yahya Azam (a different American terrorist) was arrested.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Islam and Female Genital Mutilation (Female Circumcision)
For some reason, many Muslims in the West deny the fact that Islam promotes female circumcision. To help clear up this issue, consider this fatwa (and the videos that follow).
Here's the Hadith referenced:
The translator adds the following footnote, summing up the positions of Islamic scholars:
Of course, if you don't like the conclusion, you can always dispute the Hadith.
Assalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakaatuhu
1. Circumcision for males is Waajib (compulsory) according to Imaam Abu
Hanifa. If circumcision will hinder a person from accepting Islam then
accepting Islam should be given preference over circumcision.
2. It is Mustahabb (commendable) for females to circumcise. It is narrated
in an authentic Hadith quoted from Abu Dawood Shareef that during the
Prophet (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)'s time there was a woman in Madinah
who used to perform circumsicion for women (Fathul Bari vol. 16 p. 353)
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT. SOURCE.
Here's the Hadith referenced:
Sunan Abu Dawud 5251--Umm Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
The translator adds the following footnote, summing up the positions of Islamic scholars:
The reference is to the circumcision of girls. It was practiced in Arabia when Islam came. It is disputed amongst the jurists. Some Shafi'i scholars hold that circumcision of girls is obligatory, but others think that it is recommended. Ata, Ahmad b. Hanbal, and some Maliki jurists also hold that it is obligatory. Abu Hanifah maintains that it is recommended and not obligatory. Malik also holds that it is recommended. According to Ahmad, circumcision of women is recommended but it is obligatory in men.
Of course, if you don't like the conclusion, you can always dispute the Hadith.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Dispatches: Britain's Islamic Republic
You're not going to believe this. New evidence shows that certain Muslim groups in the UK, while claiming to be moderate and tolerant, are actually working to overthrow the British government and establish Sharia law! Where in the world did these Muslims get the idea that they should deceive unbelievers and pretend to be friendly, all with the goal of conquering them? (Hint: Read the Qur'an and Hadith.)
PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
PART ONE
PART TWO
PART THREE
PART FOUR
PART FIVE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)