U.S. Special Forces Capture Abu Anas Al Liby

Our leaders hunt down jihadists, but defend the ideology that calls for jihad. We might as well attack apples while nurturing apple trees.

Abu Anas Al Liby

FoxNews—Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that a pair of raids conducted in Africa by U.S. special forces signaled the ongoing determination of the United States to bring terrorists to justice and sent the message that "members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations literally can run but they can't hide."

The Pentagon confirmed Saturday night that U.S. special forces had captured alive Abu Anas Al Liby in Tripoli, Libya. Liby, also known as Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, was wanted in connection with the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Speaking Sunday at an economic conference in Bali, Indonesia, Kerry praised the "quality and courage" of the forces involved in the two actions and vowed that the United States "will never stop in the effort to hold those accountable who conduct acts of terror" and would "continue to try to bring people to justice in an appropriate way with hopes that ultimately these kinds of activities against everybody in the world will stop." (Continue Reading.)

Taliban Jihadists Sexually Abusing Boys Training to Become Suicide Bombers

Are there any limits to the "all cultures are equal" mindset?

Central Asia Online—Taliban molestation of boys, once rarely discussed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is now becoming a more common topic of conversation.

Nematullah, a former would-be suicide bomber, told Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security (NDS) that young men, including himself, endured sexual abuse by their trainers, according to a September 23 NDS statement.

Militant leader Mullah Ahmad (aka Mullah Akhtar), who trained the young man to carry out a suicide attack on his motorcycle in Adraskan District of Herat Province in September, also sexually abused him, Nematullah said.

Police foiled Nematullah's attempted attack and informed NDS officials about his plot and the sexual victimisation of boys by the Taliban. Mullahs Nasim and Akhtar drugged several bombers-in-training to the point where they passed out, and repeatedly abused them while they were unconscious, Nematullah said.

Doctors and activists in Pakistan and Afghanistan have medically confirmed that such abuse occurs.

"We have examined at least five teenage boys … who were sexually abused by the Taliban in South Waziristan," Dr. Muhammad Hashim at the Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital in Bannu District, told Central Asia Online.

The boys escaped from Taliban captivity and told authorities that militants molested them, Hashim said. Mustafa Gul, a teacher at the Forensic Science Department of Khyber Medical College Peshawar, also has worked with young men abused by the Taliban.

"We've had … 27 sexual assault cases involving boys since January 1," Gul told Central Asia Online. "Five Taliban were involved," he said, though he provided no information about whether the militants will face sex abuse charges if they are caught.

The militants often kidnap impoverished boys who are susceptible to being preyed upon, Khalid Khan, a special branch police officer, told Central Asia Online, noting that several boys who escaped Taliban training centres in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) told investigators that they were abused and that their parents could not do anything. (Continue Reading.)

If I Only Had a Brain!

The video below presents a serious drawback about Islam in the words of Muslims themselves and does not shy away from doing so in a humorous way. If you are thin-skinned and can't take humor, then don't watch the following video. At least one Muslim, as seen in the following screenshot, decided to channel Muhammad and go berserk after watching it.

I can't refrain from noting the irony of the fact that the Muslim above was so bent out of shape that I said Muslims believe in following (at least) Muhammad blindly and brainlessly that he turned around and said that at least one of the Muslims in the following video is a brainless fag (to use his own words).

Is Islam a Threat to the West? David Wood vs. Shadid Lewis

Giving Allah a Hand (or Two)!

To learn more about Allah's hands, see the following article:

Allah's Hands: More Than a Handful of Evidence

and ABN broadcast:

Do Muslims Worship Allah's Body?

Who is Jesus? A Public Form.

Speakers: Abdullah Kunde & Samuel Green.

Thanks Abdullah. It was a great time as usual. Here are my post event comments:

1. This was a forum not a debate. We were to present our own position on Jesus. Abdullah did mention Christianity in his presentation but this was not his fault as he was not briefed properly.

2. This is the reference to Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses that I had in mind:

Ibn Taymiyyah, against the majoritarian opinion of the scholars of his day, accepted the historicity of the Satanic verses as something wholly consonant with Muhammad's status and mission as the Messenger of God. He asserted that belief in the incident was the position of the early Muslims, the salaf, and thus the original and authentic truth. (Shahab Ahmed, "Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses", Studia Islamica, no. 87, 1998, p. 122)

The Satanic verses incident is narrated in numerous reports (between 18 and 25, depending on how one reckons an independent riwayah) scattered in the sirah nabawiyyah and tafsir literature originating in the first two centuries of Islam. The indications are that the incident formed a fairly standard element in the historical memory of the early Muslim community regarding the life of its founder. (Shahab Ahmed, p. 70)

3. It was suggested that the different Gospel accounts have an inconsistent picture of Jesus. Here is a survey:

Jesus was crucified, died & raised: Matthew 16:17-19, 17:22-23, 20:17-19, 27:45-28:10; Mark 8:31, 10:32-34, 15:1-16:8; Luke 9:20-22, 18:31-34, 23:44-24:12; John 3:14, 12:24, 19:17-20:23.

Jesus is the Son of God: Matthew, 3:17, 4:3-6, 8:29, 11:27, 14:33, 16:16, 17:5, 21:37ff, 22:2ff, 24:36, 26:63-64, 27:40, 43, 54, 28:19; Mark 1:11, 3:11, 5:7, 9:7, 12:6, 13:32, 14:60-62, 15:39; Luke 1:32, 35, 3:22, 4:3-9, 41, 8:28, 9:35, 20:13, 22:66-71; John 1:34, 49, 3:16-18, 35-36, 5:16-30, 6:40, 8:35-36, 10:36, 11:4, 27, 13:32, 14:13, 17:1, 19:7, 20:21.

Jesus is the Son of Man: Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 10:23, 11:19, 12:8, 32, 40, 13:37, 41, 16:13, 27, 28, 17:9, 12, 14, 22, 19:22, 20:18, 28, 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44, 25:31, 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10, 28, 8:31, 38, 9:9, 12, 31, 10:33, 45, 13:26, 14:21, 41, 62; Luke 5:24, 6:5, 22, 7:34, 9:22, 26, 44, 58, 11:30, 12:8-10, 40, 17:22-30, 18:8, 31, 19:10, 21:27, 36, 22:22, 48, 69, 24:7; John 1:51, 3:13, 3:14, 5:16-30, 6:27, 53, 62, 8:28, 9:35, 12:23, 34, 13:31.

Jesus was a sacrifice for sin: Matthew 20:26-28, 26:26-28, 27:51; Mark 10:45, 14:22-24, 15:38; Luke 22:17-20; 23:45, John 1:34, 3:36.

4. Regarding the location of the Gadarenes it is helpful to see that it was the region not a town:

When he (Jesus) arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes. (Matthew 8:28)

5. For Muslims venerating the prophets, search "Tawassul & Istighatha".

Holy Trinity - Unholy Quran

We Shall Overcome!

The Nairobi Mall Massacre

Western leaders and the media assure us that the recent terrorist attack at Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya has nothing to do with Islam, and that, by killing unbelievers, the terrorist group al-Shabaab is violating the commands of Allah and Muhammad. But what happens when we open the Qur'an to see what it teaches? We find that Islamic history has been repeating itself for fourteen centuries.

U.S. Weapons and Vehicles Stolen by Libyan Terrorists

But I'm sure things will go much more smoothly in Syria.

FoxNews—The recent theft of massive amounts of highly sensitive U.S. military equipment from Libya is far worse than previously thought, Fox News has learned, with raiders swiping hundreds of weapons that are now in the hands of militia groups aligned with terror organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The equipment, as Fox News previously reported, was used for training in Libya by U.S. Special Forces. The training team, which was funded by the Pentagon, has since been pulled, partly in response to the overnight raids last August.

According to State Department and military sources, dozens of highly armored vehicles called GMV's, provided by the United States, are now missing. The vehicles feature GPS navigation as well as various sets of weapon mounts and can be outfitted with smoke-grenade launchers. U.S. Special Forces undergo significant training to operate these vehicles. Fox News is told the vehicles provided to the Libyans are now gone.

Along with the GMV's, hundreds of weapons are now missing, including roughly 100 Glock pistols and more than 100 M4 rifles. More disturbing, according to the sources, is that it seems almost every set of night-vision goggles has also been taken. This is advanced technology that gives very few war fighters an advantage on the battlefield.

"It's not just equipment ... it's the capability. You are giving these very dangerous groups the capability that only a few nations are capable of," one source said. "Already assassinations are picking up in Tripoli and there are major worries that the militias are using this stolen equipment to their advantage. All these militias are tied into terrorist organizations and are tied to (salafists)." (Continue Reading.)

Christian Pastor and Son Killed, Church Burned in Nigeria

But don't ever lose site of the fact that the real threat to world peace is Islamophobia.

POTISKUM, Nigeria — Police say suspected Islamic militants armed with automatic rifles and explosives killed a pastor and his son and torched a church in northeast Nigeria before dawn Thursday.

Corporal Musa Ibrahim said the attackers also killed the village head at Dorawa, about 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the Yobe state school where extremists in July killed 29 students, some burned alive.

Ibrahim said gunmen used explosives to set ablaze the church and five homes. (Continue Reading.)

Islamic Rape Wave in Britain Spreads to Bristol

It's sad that the leaders of Britain are more concerned about hurting feelings than they are about the safety of young girls.

The Bristol Post—Two men have appeared in court charged with raping underage girls who were under the care of social workers.

Bristol Magistrates' Court was told the house where the girls were living, which cannot be named for legal reasons, effectively became a brothel.

The victims were placed in the home, which the court heard was supported housing, by social workers.

The men, one of whom is an asylum seeker who has been given the right to remain in the country by the Home Office, are accused of child sexual exploitation, which includes sexual activity at the home, as well as at the Premier Inn at St James Barton roundabout.

One of them is also charged with paying a child for sexual services.

Said Zakaria, 21, also known as Target, of Seymour Road, Easton, is charged with sexual activity with a 13-year-old girl and rape of a girl aged 14 at the Premier Inn and the home.

Gama Mohammed, 32, also known as G, of Gordon Road, Whitehall, whom the court heard was an asylum seeker, spoke through an interpreter to confirm his name, age and address.

He is charged with rape at the same home and paying for the sexual services of a child at the Premier Inn. (Continue Reading.)

Another Mohammed? What are the odds?

A Muslim Dawagandist Refutes the Qur'an with the Help of Josephus - Parts 1 and 2

Back in April of 2011 I replied to a Muslim dawagandist's attempt to get mileage out of disputes over the Testimonium Flavianum. After going one round, proving himself to be a one-hitter-quitter, he dropped out of the discussion. Now, over two years later, after the dust has settled, he has decided to reissue his already refuted article hoping no one will notice. Given that, I have decided to reproduce both of my responses to him.

 -----------------

  Part 1

Although I don’t believe there is anything close to a good case to be made for Islam or against Christianity, every once in a while I like to remind a certain Muslim dawagandist just how much efforts to defend Islam and refute Christianity are better left by him to others. The longer he persists in trying to be an apologist for Islam the less he is doing anything that could be considered good even if one adopts the misguided perspective of his false prophet which he delivered in the name of a false god. The reason for this is simple: more often than not, when this dawagandist departs from his preferred approach of attacking and slandering Christians and actually tries to mount an argument, he ends up shooting the very platform on which he is standing.

Not content with previous efforts at undermining his credibility as an apologist, he decided to take one of his occasional romps out of his comfort zone of gossip and slander into the area of historical apologetics. His recent appearance in this arena involves an attack on “Trinitarian Christians” for corrupting one of the important evidences for the historical existence of Jesus. According to him, “Trinitarian Christians” are guilty of corrupting the account of the first century Jewish historian Josephus, who was, among other things, an eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

In various places in his writings Josephus makes mention of both John the Baptist and James the Lord’s half-brother. Josephus’ remarks about John the Baptist are not questioned by historical scholars, and his remarks about James are questioned by very few. However, and this is where our Muslim friend renders a disservice both to himself and his prophet, he brings up the famous Testimonium Flavianum, a portion of Josephus that, admittedly, has been debated by scholars. The passage in Josephus reads as follows:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was a doer of amazing deeds, a teacher of persons who receive the truth with pleasure. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, the leading me among us having accused him, those who loved him from the first did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having spoken these things and a myriad of other marvels concerning him. And to the present the tribe of Christians, named after this person, has not disappeared." (Ant. 18.3.3)

Scholars have taken three basic approaches to this portion of Josephus: 1) the passage is entirely spurious; 2) the passage is entirely authentic; and 3) the passage is partly authentic and partly inauthentic.

By far and away, historical scholars take the third option. A few of the reasons why most scholars do not reject the entirety of the passage as inauthentic or entirely a product of Christian hands can be given here.

In the first place, a number of the statements that appear in the Testimonium Flavianum are not characteristically Christian forms of expression or ways of speaking about Jesus. For example, although Christians believe that Jesus was/is, as He Himself said, “Greater than Solomon”, calling him “a wise man” is not a way that the early Christians did or would be expected to refer to Jesus, their Lord (and ours). Early Christians also did not refer to themselves as “the tribe of Christians”, a fact that once again points away from the idea that a Christian is responsible for at least this portion of the passage. A second observation that inclines scholars away from understanding the entire passage to be the product of Christian tampering comes from a later reference to Jesus in Josephus, a reference scholars do not contest. The way the later passage in question is worded presupposes an earlier mention of Jesus by Josephus, and the Testimonium is the only candidate for such an earlier reference.

More could be said in favor of the fact that the passage cannot be written off in its entirety as being from Josephus, but the scholarly work on this is so well known, widely spread, and easily accessible that this would be an unnecessary waste of time, especially in the present context and the real reason I have for bringing all of this up. The actual reason for bringing this up derives from one of the MAIN reasons that scholars have for saying that the passage contains at least some Christian interpolations. Just how my Muslim friend missed the significance of this and walked right into an incredibly embarrassing situation is truly beyond me, though I guess I shouldn’t have put it past him. Here is the list of reasons as it was provided by this Muslim:

"The principle arguments against the genuineness of the account in the Jewish Antiqiuities are as follows:

(i) The Jewish Josephus could not have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah]

(ii) While the bishop and historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 340 CE) mentions the controversial passage, the Greek theologian Origen (ca. 185-254 CE) had expressly stated that Josephus did not believe Isa [Jesus] to be al-Masih;

and finally

(iii) The suspicious passage breaks continuity of Josephus’ description of a series of riots (Feldman, 1965:49)" (Emphasis original)

To this I want to give as loud and emphatic an “AMEN” as I possibly can: Josephus, as scholars agree, in so far as he was a Jew and not a Christian, “could NOT have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah].”

And that, noble readers, is why we not only must understand that the text of Josephus at this point cannot be entirely the product of his hand; it is also one of the MANY reasons why we must reject the Qur’an as the Word of God, for it contains just such an obvious and glaring error – or should I say “interpolation”? – as even our Muslim friend admits in the above case. It does this when it attributes the following statement to those first century Jews who rejected Jesus: “Surely we have killed THE MESSIAH [al-Masih], Isa the Son of Marium, THE MESSENGER of Allah” (S. 4:157). The simple fact of the matter is, unbelieving first century Jews “could not have described Isa [Jesus] as al-Masih [Messiah],” and therefore the so-called “perfectly preserved Qur’an” has perfectly preserved for us one of the many errors of the Allah of the Qur’an and his only messenger – Muhammad.

In light of this I must once again appeal to this Muslim to consider hanging up his apologetic hat. "If the hat doesn't fit, you ought to quit."

For more on this, see here:

The Qur’an: A Book Full of Conjecture and Doubt

-------------

Part II

It looks like my earlier blog post found here did not go over well with my Muslim friend. It also appears my plea fell on deaf ears and he has decided not to take off that old silk hat of his, even though it doesn’t fit and the magic has long since run out.

One of his complaints is that I focused on only one of the issues dealt with in his blog post, but it was to his own benefit that I only narrowed in on one of his errors rather than all of them. As I will show, his complaint here is like that of a convicted murderer objecting to the fact that he was not also brought up on rape charges for raping a woman on the same day he committed first degree murder.

Before coming to the other issue he is anxious to be refuted on, I need to return to the original problem that I addressed in my post, a problem he desperately tried to disentangle himself from but only managed to get himself more tied up.

Here is the problem in a nutshell:

1) The Testimonium Flavianum (hereafter, TF) is not considered by most scholars to be a pure, unadulterated statement of Josephus free of any mishandling by some Christian(s), whether this is attributable to an accidental scribal gloss or is due to some nefarious reason(s). The basis on which most scholars suspect a Christian interpolation into TF is because it calls Jesus "the Messiah", which Josephus would not have done since he was a non-Christian Jew.

2) Surah 4:157 in the Qur’an attributes a statement to those first century Jews who rejected Jesus that would likewise have to be rejected as either an interpolation into the Qur’an or a bald-faced error on the part of the original author(s), if the above reasoning is granted as valid. That is, since first century Jews would not have boasted that they killed Isa “the Messiah” and “the messenger of God”, for the very obvious reason that they desired his death precisely because they rejected his claim to be the Messiah, this verse as it exists in the present day Uthmanic recension of the Qur’an must be rejected as an error.

In response to this, he replied as follows:

“I suppose the thought of context left his [Anthony Rogers – AR] mind as he appealed to Quran 4:157. Did he ever stop to think the Jews could have appended those titles to Jesus out of sarcasm as a form of mockery or the titles are due to paraphrasing from the Author (God)? The sarcasm point is similar to the passage where Jesus was allegedly mocked in Mark 15:16-20 with the title of “king of the Jews”.”

Since he never tells us himself just what the context offers us to help clarify the meaning of this verse, it is hard to know what it was that supposedly left my mind as I read the verse. And since he says the Jews “could have” given those titles to Jesus out of sarcasm, it is also apparent that the context did not clearly settle the matter for him either. In fact, he even goes on to give a second possibility in the same sentence when he says the author of this verse could have been “paraphrasing” the Jews. So which is it? Does the context clearly point to the fact that the Jews were being sarcastic? Or does it clearly point to the fact that Allah was simply paraphrasing the Jews? Apparently the necessary context to make it clear that either of these meanings was intended left the mind of the author who penned them, leaving future generations of readers in the precarious situation of trying to make heads or tails of the verse and no other option but flipping a coin to settle the controversy.

In support of the idea that the Jews could have engaged in sarcasm, though the Qur’an does not clearly say this and the context does not indicate it either, he points to the fact that “Jesus was allegedly mocked in Mark 15:16-20 with the title ‘king of the Jews’”. The mistakes involved in drawing this comparison to Mark’s gospel are stark. In the first place, Mark 15:20 is talking about the Romans rather than the Jews. Second, the passage explicitly says they said this in mockery: “And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the purple cloak…” On the other hand, neither the immediate passage nor the broader context of Surah 4:157 say anything of the sort. And that’s why not all Muslims hold this interpretation. In fact, they have many more interpretations on offer than the two dogmatically asserted by My Muslim friend. Given that the text of the Bible is sufficiently detailed and clear on this point while the text of the Qur’an is not, we also have to smart from the fact that this Muslim would say the Jews “allegedly” mocked Jesus. The only thing that we may fairly say is being alleged here is that the Quranic statement compares to the Biblical one when it clearly does not, at least as far as the issue of clarity goes. Moreover, some translations of the Qur’an even suggest the very opposite of this view, such as Yusuf Ali’s translation which parenthetically adds the words “in boast”, which shows that on his reading of the verse the Jews were not mocking but actually boasting when they said this. Couldn’t the “allegedly” omniscient author of the Qur’an see that the way he communicated this event might suggest to people that the Jews were not being sarcastic as we see in the case of Yusuf Ali? Or couldn’t the allegedly omniscient author of what boasts to be the world’s most eloquent book have spoken more clearly and explicitly said “mockery” so that those who follow him would not be left to cast about for explanations and fall all over each other in the process?

It is just because the verse does not clearly indicate that the Jews were saying this in mockery that my Muslim friend turns around and says Allah could have simply been paraphrasing what the Jews said. On top of the fact that this exposes the error of pretending that this passage somehow clearly shows in context that the Jews were mocking, the idea that Allah was paraphrasing the Jews is also problematic. The very idea of a paraphrase is to communicate the gist of something in roughly approximate language. But how is putting a statement in the mouths of Jews that they wouldn’t have spoken approximate what they could have said? To suggest such a thing is laughable, but perhaps my Muslim friend is just engaging in a little mockery and is pulling my chain when he pretends that he is actually offering well-thought out, problem free explanations of what is going on in Surah 4:157. In fact, I wonder if he would mind if I paraphrase him in a way that inaccurately expresses his actual position in the way he says his god did in S. 4:157.

Unmindful of my aim in the blog post – which was to show that the very reasoning this Muslim appealed to in order to argue that Christians added things to TF, and that this is a good illustration of one of the many problems with Surah 4:157 – this Muslim objects to the fact that I did not deal with his point that an interpolation among the handlers of Josephus writings at one point shows that some scribe was dishonest. He says:

“Even if Jews sincerely called Jesus by such titles [in 4:157] it would have NO bearing upon the blog post as it simply repeats one of the reasons as to why the critics doubt the passage in Josephus was interpolated whilst travelling in a culture of dishonesty amongst the scribes. I guess this was lost on Mr Rogers.”

It might have no bearing on the point of his post, but why should that matter to me? So I had a different point in mind when I used something this Muslim said in the process of arguing against the authenticity of TF. Big deal. How is this helpful to him and other Muslims? He was arguing against the authenticity of Josephus, and I was using his argument to refute the Qur’an. This means at best his argument shows a problem in the transmission of Josephus, while my argument on the other hand points up a problem in the Qur’an. As I see it, this is a great trade off. I was minded to freely give him the point of his post, which was that Jospehus was partially corrupted for the reasons he appealed to, and to be consistent that means he has to give me the error or corruption of the Qur’an on the basis of the same reasons. In other words, I freely granted that he has a pair of twos; now consistency demands that he realize I have a royal flush.

Although it wasn’t my intention to address his concern that Josephus was mishandled, since he is hopping up and down about it I would simply point out that scholars, even though we have an incredibly impoverished manuscript tradition for Josephus as compared to the Bible, still believe they can, with some degree of confidence, by comparing and collating manuscripts (such as Greek, Slavonic, and Arabic texts of Josephus) and through the application of critical thinking and a sound methodology, determine what Josephus would have said. In fact, such reconstructions have been offered by a number of scholars, including one of the scholars this Muslim favors and often quotes in other contexts: Geza Vermes.

As for the charge of dishonesty on the part of later scribes, at best this Muslim has only shown that someone along the way was dishonest, not that there was “a culture of dishonesty”. But of course he didn’t even prove or even so much as argue that someone was dishonest; he merely asserted this, nothing more. The fact of the matter is there may be another explanation for how the change occurred, such as a marginal comment that was accidentally copied by a later scribe as if it were part of the original text, a mistake that often occurred in hand written manuscripts.

This brings us, finally, to the other issue that this Muslim complained about that I did not address, i.e. the fact that Josephus did not report anything about the slaughter of the innocents. According to him, this is supposed to show that the slaughter of the innocents reported in Matthew’s account of the Gospel did not actually take place.

“-Anthony, you failed to adequately cover the main point to the post; why did Josephus fail to mention Herod’s massacre of young boys despite chronicling Herod’s brutal history.”

Several things may be said in response to this argument from silence:

At no point in Josephus’ writings does he say anywhere that he aims to be exhaustive. In fact, by comparing Antiquities of the Jews to Jewish War, we see that Josephus mentions things in the one work that he doesn’t mention in the other. It is evident from this that Josephus was not aiming to be exhaustive in either one.

This is not only true in a general sense; it is particularly true when it comes to Josephus' account of Herod. In one place in Antiquities, Josephus says:

"And since Herod had now the government of all Judea put into his hands, he promoted such of the private men in the city as had been of his party, but never left off avenging and punishing every day those that had chosen to be of the party of his enemies." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 15:1)

But Josephus does not tell us each and every act of punishment that Herod inflicted on his enemies every day. This is a clear indication that Josephus was not trying to be exhaustive even when it comes to the history of Herod.

Worse still, there are events from the time period that Josephus does not record that we know about from other sources. For example, we know from other historical sources that Herod persecuted and repressed the wilderness Essenes, but Josephus makes no mention of this.

When we put all of this together, what we have is this. In the first place, Josephus did not aim to be exhaustive in everything that he recounted. Second, we know that Josephus did not aim at or achieve an exhaustive account of the person and acts of Herod. Third, we have a specific example of something Herod did that Josephus did not recount. Given all of this, can anyone seriously argue that an event, such as the slaughter of the innocents reported in Matthew, did not take place just because Josephus does not report it? Obviously not.

Many more things could be mentioned, but this post has already become quite long and the above is more than adequate to remind my Muslim friend why the apologetic task is best left to others. In trying to argue for Islam and against Christianity, he has not given us any cogent reason to reject or doubt the latter, and in the process has given us good reason to reject the Qur’anic claim to be clear, exhaustively detailed, and without error. Worst of all, we learn all of this by a comparison of his own reasoning with the very verse that accuses those who believe in the crucifixion of Christ of having no certain knowledge about what actually happened and of being full of conjecture and doubt. If my Muslim interlocutor has shown anything, he has shown that he can’t defend against the error of S. 4:157 without showing in the process that he does not really know what is going on at this point in the passage and therefore has to engage in conjecture, and these very conjectures themselves are open to many serious objections, including the objection that S. 4:157 is supposed to dispel all such conjecture on his part.

Although it won’t be a continuation of this article, many more errors and/or ambiguities in Surah 4:157 will be mentioned in future posts. Of course if my Muslim friend wants to further entangle himself and try to respond to the above, then I will happily continue this discussion as well.

Some arguments in this vein were already made in a previous post, others were not repeated. Hence, the reader is encouraged to read the earlier article, found here: The Qur’an: A Book Full of Conjecture and Doubt

See also a post done by David a long time ago on this verse: The Irony of the Qur’an–Surah 4:157-158

Sam Shamoun has also written on this general subject:

The Qur’an, Bible Preservation and the Crufixion

And the latter article in particular from Sam contains a section towards the end addressing the claim that the Jews were mocking or being sarcastic in S. 4:157.

Did Jesus Really Obey Satan? Exposing Another Muslim Fraud and Lie

Egyptian Court Bans Muslims Brotherhood

There was one positive outcome of the Arab Spring in Egypt. During the reign of Mubarak, most of the Muslim population of Egypt were convinced that the Muslim Brotherhood is a force for good, and that, if given a chance, the Brotherhood would rule with justice according to Islamic principles. When the Brotherhood took over after the fall of Mubarak, Egyptians found out what Islamic principles do to a country. Now, the Muslim Brotherhood is once again banned.

And yet, here in America, politicians and the media pander to CAIR, which is a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Are Egyptians more Islamophobic than Americans/

FoxNews—Egypt has banned the Muslim Brotherhood from carrying out activities inside the country as its interim government looks to crack down on unrest following former President Mohammed Morsi’s ouster. 

“The court bans the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood organization and its non-governmental organization and all the activities that it participates in and any organization derived from it,” judge Mohammed al-Sayed said in a statement on Monday, according to Reuters.

The court also ordered the Muslim Brotherhood's assets confiscated.

The Brotherhood was outlawed for most of its 85 years in existence. But after the 2011 ouster of autocrat Hosni Mubarak, it was allowed to work openly, formed a political party and rose to power in a string of post-Mubarak elections. In March, it registered as a recognized non-governmental organization. (Continue Reading.)

At Least 52 Killed in Suicide Attack on Christian Church in Pakistan

The Qur'an commands Muslims to violently subjugate unbelievers (9:29; 9:73; 9:123). Muhammad commanded his followers to violently subjugate unbelievers (Sahih al-Bukhari 6924; Sahih Muslim 33). Yet when Muslims attack unbelievers who are shopping or attending church, politicians and the media assure us that it has nothing to do with Islam.

FoxNews—A suicide bomb attack on a historic church in northwestern Pakistan killed at least 52 people and wounded over 100 Sunday, officials said, in one of the worst assaults on the country's Christian minority in years.

The bombing underlines the threat posed by Islamic extremists as the government seeks a peace deal with domestic Taliban militants.

It occurred as worshippers were coming out of the church in Peshawar city following services to get a free meal of rice offered on the front lawn, said a top government administrator, Sahibzada Anees.

It was not immediately clear whether one or two suicide bombers carried out the attack.

Witnesses said they heard two blasts, the second more powerful than the first. One police officer, Zahir Shah, said he believed both blasts were caused by suicide bombers.

The dead included several women and children, said Sher Ali Khan, a doctor at a hospital in Peshawar where the victims were being treated.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but suspicion will likely fall on one of the country's many Islamic militant groups. Islamic militants have been blamed for previous attacks on the Muslim country's Christian minority, as well as Muslim groups they consider heretics. (Continue Reading.)

Support Needed for Overseas Trip

Next month, I'll be speaking at a three-day conference in a country that I'm not supposed to name because no one wants the local terrorist population to know that Christians are having a conference. (Although, if I know you well enough, feel free to ask in a private message.) Several speakers will be training Christians how to respond to Muslim arguments and objections. I purchased my plane ticket, which was $1396.90. Since I'm going to be there for almost a week, the costs are going to be significantly higher. Please contribute if you can. (I've got four kids for crying out loud!) Donations are tax-deductible.

***UPDATE*** Thanks everyone! You've contributed more than enough to cover my trip.

How to End a Debate (Featuring David Wood and Shadid Lewis)

Here's how to end a Christian-Muslim debate like a boss.

Fifty-Three Dead in Baghdad Funeral Car Bombings

Much like today's deadly terrorist attack in Kenya, however, these car bombings have nothing to do with Islam, which is a religion of peace, regardless of what it actually teaches. And if you think that Islam teaches what it actually teaches, then you're a racist.

(CNN) — A pair of car bombings at a funeral procession in a predominantly Shiite district in eastern Baghdad killed 53 people Saturday, police and health officials said.

At least 110 others were wounded by the blasts, which happened a few seconds apart in Sadr City, officials said.

A third car bomb exploded on a busy road nearby, killing three more people and wounding 18. (Source)

Sex Jihad Rampant in Syria

Muslims often claim that Islam promotes equality between men and women (despite clear statements in the Qur'an and Hadith that women are morally and intellectually inferior to men). When it comes to Jihad, there seems to be some truth to this claim. Muslim men wage Jihad by killing unbelievers in the name of Allah. But Muslim women also get to wage Jihad—by having sex with dozens of male jihadists and heading home pregnant with the next generation of terrorists.

Don't ever forget the role that Western politicians and the media played (and are still playing) in the Arab Spring.

The Telegraph—Tunisian women have travelled to Syria to wage "sex jihad" by comforting Islamist fighters battling the regime there, Interior Minister Lotfi ben Jeddou has told MPs.

"They have sexual relations with 20, 30, 100" militants, the minister told members of the National Constituent Assembly on Thursday.

"After the sexual liaisons they have there in the name of 'jihad al-nikah' - (sexual holy war, in Arabic) - they come home pregnant," Ben Jeddou told the MPs.

He did not elaborate on how many Tunisian women had returned to the country pregnant with the children of jihadist fighters.

Jihad al-nikah, permitting extramarital sexual relations with multiple partners, is considered by some hardline Sunni Muslim Salafists as a legitimate form of holy war. (Continue Reading.)