UPDATE 1: It appears this man is a Sunni Muslim! Thus the Islamophobes influencing him would not be a valid theory.
The infamous David Wood has indeed posited a different theory which dictates Roger Stokham is not sound mentally. Perhaps this could be the reason behind Stockham's attack on a Mosque.
We await the outcome of the trial.
UPDATE 2: It appears a dishonest Islamophobe is accusing me of accusing his small Islamophobic group (Acts 17) of encouraging Stockham. He fails to understand there are a ton of Islamophobes so when when I suggest "Islamophobes" could have influenced this fella it does NOT solely refer to his small group.
I guess this man is trying to have a disingenuous dig in order to circumnavigate all the lies and outrage his group have been peddling - much of his group's shame is catalogued on this site (see below)
The original post has been maintained for purposes of intellectual honesty, see below:
OK, we have seen Islamophobic rabble-rousers on the internet hate-mongering against Muslims and distorting the realities in Dearborn. Some Islamophobes even take their fear-mongering to the level of presenting sex hoaxes about Muslims and some specifically target Dearbon by claiming there is "Sharia in Dearborn" and even visit the city looking for controversy under the guise of evangelsim.
Well, it seems Islamophobic lies and propaganda have affected a 63 year old man, Roger Stockham, to the extent that he attempted to BLOW UP a mosque in Dearborn. Apparently, he travelled all the way from the San Diego area to do so. This man has been buttered up by the Islamophobic propaganda - I would not be surprised if this fella was donating cash to the self-styled internet warriors against "jihad" and "sharia".
I just hope this chap learns it's a business - he was taken in by their Islamophobic rhetoric - a rhetoric which is designed to fear-monger and generate donations ($$$). Some folk are just so gullible!
Roger Stockham Arrested for Attempting to Blow Up Dearborn Mosque
DETROIT -- A 63-year-old U.S. man who had explosives in his vehicle was arrested outside one of America's largest mosques in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn, authorities said.
Police said Roger Stockham was arraigned Wednesday on one count of making a false report or threat of terrorism and one count of possessing explosives with an unlawful intent. Stockham had a large but undisclosed quantity of class-C fireworks including M-80s, which are outlawed in Michigan, Chief Ronald Haddad said.
"I was comfortable with the fact that we had taken him off the street -- he isn't going anywhere," Haddad told The Associated Press Sunday afternoon. "I think the society he wanted to impact is safe."
Haddad said Stockham was arrested Monday evening without incident in the parking lot of Islamic Center of America, while a large group was gathered inside. He said police received an emergency call from a resident.
Haddad said authorities believe Stockham was acting alone but still take him "very seriously." He said Stockham has "a long history of anti-government activities," though he declined to elaborate.
[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/30/man-arrested-explosives-outside-nations-largest-mosques/]
***Another Nabeel Qureshi LIE***
See:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-nabeel-qureshis-whopper-of-lie.html
***David Wood of Acts 17 - another DECEPTIVE episode***
see:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/02/more-islamophobic-lies-from-christian.html
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Christian Missionaries: A Dishonest Past on Islam Sleep Walks into the Present
Actually, quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. One notable example is Sir William Muir, who was an active missionary and author of several books on Islam. His books were very biased and narrow-minded studies, but they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day.
That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main “competitor” on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one’s neighbour, Christians’ distortions and lies about Islam were widespread, as the following shows:
“The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John the Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols!
Peter the Venerable (1084 – 1156) “translated” the Quran, which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters.
Sale’s infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammad.
Often they employed invented stories, or narrations which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam.
As Norman Daniel tell [sic] us in his work Islam and the West: “The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal…” (p. 267)” [From An Authoritative Exposition – part 1, by ‘Abdur-Raheem Green]
Taken from: p35-36, Studies in Hadith Literature with a Complete Hadith Terminology, Omar Ahmed Kasir, Al Firdous Ltd, 2005
Tired of cataloguing current Christian missionary lies
I ask you, has there really been a shift in Christian missionary communities with regards to their level of intellectual honesty when dealing with Islam? From what I can see on the internet (and beyond) there are a number of Christian missionaries, either fabricating or blindly peddling fabrications initiated by their dishonest predecessors.
If you are a Non-Muslim, PLEASE start learning about Islam for yourself do NOT rely on a missionary to teach you about Islam as he/she could very realistically be fabricating lies or obliviously presenting the lies of past Christian missionaries in good faith.
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main “competitor” on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one’s neighbour, Christians’ distortions and lies about Islam were widespread, as the following shows:
“The history of Orientalism is hardly one of unbiased examination of the sources of Islam especially when under the influence of the bigotry of Christianity. From the fanatical distortions of John the Damascus to the apologetic of later writers against Islam that told their audiences that the Muslims worshipped three idols!
Peter the Venerable (1084 – 1156) “translated” the Quran, which was used throughout the Middle Ages and included nine additional chapters.
Sale’s infamously distorted translation followed that trend, and his along with the likes of Rodwell, Muir and a multitude of others attacked the character and personality of Muhammad.
Often they employed invented stories, or narrations which the Muslims themselves considered fabricated or weak, or else they distorted the facts by claiming Muslims held a position which they did not, or using the habits practised out of ignorance among the Muslims as the accurate portrayal of Islam.
As Norman Daniel tell [sic] us in his work Islam and the West: “The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal…” (p. 267)” [From An Authoritative Exposition – part 1, by ‘Abdur-Raheem Green]
Taken from: p35-36, Studies in Hadith Literature with a Complete Hadith Terminology, Omar Ahmed Kasir, Al Firdous Ltd, 2005
Tired of cataloguing current Christian missionary lies
I ask you, has there really been a shift in Christian missionary communities with regards to their level of intellectual honesty when dealing with Islam? From what I can see on the internet (and beyond) there are a number of Christian missionaries, either fabricating or blindly peddling fabrications initiated by their dishonest predecessors.
If you are a Non-Muslim, PLEASE start learning about Islam for yourself do NOT rely on a missionary to teach you about Islam as he/she could very realistically be fabricating lies or obliviously presenting the lies of past Christian missionaries in good faith.
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Explaining the Tongue-Sucking Hadith
It appears Islamophobic rabble-rousers on the internet have been distorting the reason behind Prophet Muhammad allowing his grandchildren (Hassan and Husayn, ra) to suck his tongue. [1]
Sadly, these folk have very little research behind them and even less desire for the truth. They have twisted these actions of genuine devotion and concern for these boys to reflect their debauched minds by accusing the Prophet of homosexuality.
What is the actual reason behind the tongue-sucking?
The answer lies in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad. The reason behind the tongue-sucking was to quench their thirst and help settle them down. We must remember this was an arid environment (desert) where water was scarce, thus loving parents/guardians did go to such lengths in caring for children:
He gave al-Hasan and al-Husayn his tongue to suck. They had been weeping from thirst and upon this they became quiet. [2]
This was a genuine act of devotion; had Jesus (p), Gandi, Guru Nanak or Mother Theresa carried out such an act of devotion to children they would have been praised for it. Sadly, this is not always the case for Prophet Muhammad (p) as malicious Islamophobes on the internet have dark agendas they are pursuing assiduously.
Outrageous Islamophobic spin on a genuine act of devotion!
Islamophobes who present Ahadith (narrations) of such a nature in order to promote the idea of homosexuality or child abuse should desist immediately as their spin amounts to nothing more than a fallacious and fanciful attempt at character assassination.
May Allah guide these people. Ameen.
Muslims and Non-Muslims should be alert…
If a hater does present a claim where this occurred between the Prophet (p) and his grandchildren or his daughter (Fatima) please realise there is nothing untoward and the action was a genuine act of devotion that any caring person would undertake for the betterment of the infants. Do not be swayed by such hollow and outrageous distortions.
We must also remember homosexuality is forbidden and sinful in Islam. [3]
The Prophet’s saliva
Prophet even used to spit in the mouths of suckling children in order to satisfy them until nightfall [4]. Further examples of the blessings within the Prophet’s saliva are given in footnotes [5], [6].
Muslim Act of Stoning the Devil During Hajj is Abrahamic
Misconceptions about the Black Stone
Christian accuses Muslims of pagan practices
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
MUSLIM refutes the homosexual allegation alleged at Prophet Jesus (p)
Christian hater’s immature cross-dressing allegation is refuted
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] A couple of narrations Islamophobes erroneously “use” in their efforts to degrade and dehumanize the Prophet (p) and Islam:
Bukhari, 1183. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "I never sae al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa'. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'" [Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari by Imam BukhariTranslated by: Ustadha Aisha Bewley] From - http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx
Also:
Musnad Ahmed Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan": "I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
[2] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004 pg 184
[3] Imam Dhahabi’s list of enormities (sins), p17.0 he writes, “…There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of other religions that sodomy is an enormity…” [From the list of enormities presented in Nuh Hamim Keller’s translation of Umdat as Salik, Amana Publications, 2008, p17.0 (page 644)]
[4] He used to spit into the mouths of suckling children and his saliva would satisfy them until nightfall [page 184 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
[5] He spat in a well that was in Anas’ house and there was no water in Madina sweeter than it – Al Bayhaqi [from page 183 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
[6] This narration is unclear as to whether the blessings were within the saliva of the Prophet (p) or not but it is of benefit to mention:
In the hadith of Hanash ibn Uqayl we find, “The Messenger of Allah would give me a drink of sawiq (a kind of mash). He would drink first and I would drink last. I always found that it filled me up when I was hungry and quenched me when I was thirsty and was cool when I was parched”
[from page 184 in Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
Sadly, these folk have very little research behind them and even less desire for the truth. They have twisted these actions of genuine devotion and concern for these boys to reflect their debauched minds by accusing the Prophet of homosexuality.
What is the actual reason behind the tongue-sucking?
The answer lies in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad. The reason behind the tongue-sucking was to quench their thirst and help settle them down. We must remember this was an arid environment (desert) where water was scarce, thus loving parents/guardians did go to such lengths in caring for children:
He gave al-Hasan and al-Husayn his tongue to suck. They had been weeping from thirst and upon this they became quiet. [2]
This was a genuine act of devotion; had Jesus (p), Gandi, Guru Nanak or Mother Theresa carried out such an act of devotion to children they would have been praised for it. Sadly, this is not always the case for Prophet Muhammad (p) as malicious Islamophobes on the internet have dark agendas they are pursuing assiduously.
Outrageous Islamophobic spin on a genuine act of devotion!
Islamophobes who present Ahadith (narrations) of such a nature in order to promote the idea of homosexuality or child abuse should desist immediately as their spin amounts to nothing more than a fallacious and fanciful attempt at character assassination.
May Allah guide these people. Ameen.
Muslims and Non-Muslims should be alert…
If a hater does present a claim where this occurred between the Prophet (p) and his grandchildren or his daughter (Fatima) please realise there is nothing untoward and the action was a genuine act of devotion that any caring person would undertake for the betterment of the infants. Do not be swayed by such hollow and outrageous distortions.
We must also remember homosexuality is forbidden and sinful in Islam. [3]
The Prophet’s saliva
Prophet even used to spit in the mouths of suckling children in order to satisfy them until nightfall [4]. Further examples of the blessings within the Prophet’s saliva are given in footnotes [5], [6].
Muslim Act of Stoning the Devil During Hajj is Abrahamic
Misconceptions about the Black Stone
Christian accuses Muslims of pagan practices
Sharia Law against terrorism
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam
Learn about Islam
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
MUSLIM refutes the homosexual allegation alleged at Prophet Jesus (p)
Christian hater’s immature cross-dressing allegation is refuted
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] A couple of narrations Islamophobes erroneously “use” in their efforts to degrade and dehumanize the Prophet (p) and Islam:
Bukhari, 1183. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "I never sae al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa'. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'" [Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari by Imam BukhariTranslated by: Ustadha Aisha Bewley] From - http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx
Also:
Musnad Ahmed Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan": "I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
[2] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004 pg 184
[3] Imam Dhahabi’s list of enormities (sins), p17.0 he writes, “…There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of other religions that sodomy is an enormity…” [From the list of enormities presented in Nuh Hamim Keller’s translation of Umdat as Salik, Amana Publications, 2008, p17.0 (page 644)]
[4] He used to spit into the mouths of suckling children and his saliva would satisfy them until nightfall [page 184 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
[5] He spat in a well that was in Anas’ house and there was no water in Madina sweeter than it – Al Bayhaqi [from page 183 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
[6] This narration is unclear as to whether the blessings were within the saliva of the Prophet (p) or not but it is of benefit to mention:
In the hadith of Hanash ibn Uqayl we find, “The Messenger of Allah would give me a drink of sawiq (a kind of mash). He would drink first and I would drink last. I always found that it filled me up when I was hungry and quenched me when I was thirsty and was cool when I was parched”
[from page 184 in Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Was Abu Sufyan Forced to Convert to Islam? No.
Sadly, Islamophobes on internet forums are suggesting the Prophet Muhammad forced Abu Sufyan bin Harith (also named Sufyan bin Harb) to convert to Islam. This is untrue. NONE of the Quraish (the tribe which Abu Sufyan belonged to) was forced into Islam, as confirmed by Karen Armstrong:
None of the Quraish was forced to become Muslim, but Muhammad’s victory convinced some of his most principled opponents, such as Abu Sufyan, that the old religion had failed. [2]
A quick recap on Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib
He was the cousin of the Prophet (p) as well as his foster brother. He was a poet who antagonized Prophet Muhammad (p) during his Prophetic mission.
His enmity to the Prophet (p) degenerated into full scale war against him on the field of battle. He would also make fun of him with his tongue at public gatherings until light of Iman (faith) entered his heart and his breast became expanded for the acceptance of Islam. [3]
The expert, Sheikh Al Mubarakpuri, on Abu Sufyan’s conversion
When piecing together actualities from the plethora of early traditions we need EXPERTS to sift through them and analyse and subsequently conclude according to a criterion of reliability, context and a process of harmonization.
Sheikh Safiur Rahman al Mubarakpuri describes the conversion of Abu Sufyan:
After making full preparation, the Prophet (p) proceeded to Makkah at the head of ten thousand soldiers on the 10th of Ramadan 8 AH… [4]
…At Al-Abwa, the Muslims came across Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith and Abdullah bin Umaiyah, the Prophet’s cousins, but, on account of the harm they had inflicted, and their satiric language against the believers, they were not welcomed. [4]
Ali (ra) addressed Abu Sufyan to go and request the Prophet (p) for pardon and confess his ill-behaviour in a manner similar to that of the brothers of Yusuf (the Prophet Joseph, p):
“They said: ‘By Allah! Indeed Allah has preferred you above us, and we have been sinners’” [12:91]
Abu Sufyan followed Ali’s advice , to which the Prophet (p) quoted Allah’s Words:
“He said: No reproach on you this day, may Allah forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!’” [12:92]
Abu Sufyan recited some verses paying a generous tribute to the Prophet (p) and professing Islam as his only religion [1] [4]
So this was the point Abu Sufyan accepted Islam – clearly he was NOT forced to accept Islam, despite there being threats to his life as well as opposition to him due to his past [5]. In fact Abu Sufyan’s wife converted to Islam as well despite having chewed the liver of Hamza (the Prophet’s uncle) [6]
Abu Sufyan's conversion described by Sa'd Yusuf Abu Aziz
Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz also describes Abu Sufyan’s conversion which clearly illustrates Abu Sufyan was intent on gaining the pleasure of Prophet Muhammad (p) - he was not coerced at the point of a sword:
The light of faith shone into the heart of Abu Sufyan while the Messenger of Allah was preparing for the conquest of Makkah. Abu Sufyan and his son, Ja’far left Makkah for Madinah with the sole intention of submitting to the Lord of the worlds. When the Prophet (p) saw him, he turned away from him. He humbled himself before the Prophet (p) imploring him for the pleasure. He would earn his pleasure or else he would hold the hand of his son and both of them would walk in the wilderness until they would die of hunger and thirst.
The Prophet eventually relented toward him and he became a good Muslim afterwards. [3]
Abu Sufyan’s conversion was sincere
Of course, if a conversion is forced it is not going to be a faithful “conversion”. Abu Sufyan’s conversion was sincere, so much so that he even put his life on the line by standing firm in protecting the Prophet (p) in the Battle of Hunayn [7]
Abu Sufyan’s sincerity in Islam is highlighted further by his words at the time of his passing away:
Abu Ishaq As-Sibai said: when Abu Sufyan bin Al Harith bin Abdul Muttalib approached his death he said “Do not weep over my death for since I became a Muslim, I have not been tarnished” [8]
Conclusion
Islamophobes isolate narrations and add their agenda-based spin to such in order to prop up their misguided argumentation. We should always be mindful of learning from those who are privy to more knowledge than folk on Islamophobic forums. The SCHOLARS are people we should be relying upon for Islamic instructions and teachings.
The Quran teaches us there is no compulsion in religion
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower [Quran 2:256, Pikthal translation]
Sheikh Yasir Qadhi’s speech on Islamophobia
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] Abu Sufyan accepted Islam at this point and thereafter became a good Muslim. The Prophet (p) loved him and even testified that he would be in Paradise. See Zadul-Ma’ad 2/162. 163 (Footnote from page 462 of Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002)
[2] Islam - A Short History, Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press, 2001, p20
[3] Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p281- 282
[4] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, 461-462
[5] Before they got near the camp, they met Abbas (ra), the Prophet’s uncle. He informed Abu Sufyan of the situation and advised him to accept Islam and persuade his people to surrender before Muhammad (p); otherwise his head would be struck off.
Under the prevailing compelling circumstances, Abu Sufyan went in the company of Abbas (ra) seeking the chance of meeting the Prophet (p). The Muslims were furious to see Abu Sufyan and wanted to kill him on the spot. But the two men managed, not without difficulties, to see Allah’s Messenger (p) who advised that they see him the following day. The Prophet (p) addressed Abu Sufyan saying “Woe to you! Isn’t it time for you to bear witness to the Oneness of Allah and Prophethood of Muhammad?” Here he began to request the Prophet (p) in the most sincere words that testify to the Prophet’s generosity and mild temper begging for pardon and forgiveness, and professing wholeheartedly the new Faith.
[Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p462-463]
[6] Upon the conquest of Mecca, the Meccans gathered to pledge loyalty to the Prophet (p), this included the wife of Abu Sufyan:
…Hind bint Utbah, Abu Sufyan’s wife, came in the group of women disguised lest the Prophet (p) should recognize and account for her, having chewed the liver of Hamzah (ra), his uncle.
The Prophet (p) accepted their allegiance on condition that they associate none with Allah, to which they immediately agreed. He added that they should not practice theft. Here Hind complained that her husband, Abu Sufyan, was tight-fisted. Her husband interrupted granting all his worldly possessions to her. The Prophet (p) laughed and recognized the woman. She requested him to extend his pardon to her and to forgive all her previous sins. Some other conditions were imposed including the prohibition of adultery, killing of infants or fabricating falsehood. To all these orders, Hind replied positively swearing that she would not have come to take an oath of allegiance if she had had the least seed of disobedience to him. On returning home, she broke her idol admitting her delusion over stone-gods.
[Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p470-471]
[7] Abu Sufyan was by the side of the Prophet (p) holding the rein of his riding animal fending off attacks against the Prophet (p). When the dust of the intense battle subsided and the Muslims obtained a resounding victory, the Messenger of Allah became even more fond of Abu Sufyan. He was amongst those who were steadfast with him on that day. He demonstrated the sincerity of his Islam. [Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p283]
[8] Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p284
None of the Quraish was forced to become Muslim, but Muhammad’s victory convinced some of his most principled opponents, such as Abu Sufyan, that the old religion had failed. [2]
A quick recap on Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib
He was the cousin of the Prophet (p) as well as his foster brother. He was a poet who antagonized Prophet Muhammad (p) during his Prophetic mission.
His enmity to the Prophet (p) degenerated into full scale war against him on the field of battle. He would also make fun of him with his tongue at public gatherings until light of Iman (faith) entered his heart and his breast became expanded for the acceptance of Islam. [3]
The expert, Sheikh Al Mubarakpuri, on Abu Sufyan’s conversion
When piecing together actualities from the plethora of early traditions we need EXPERTS to sift through them and analyse and subsequently conclude according to a criterion of reliability, context and a process of harmonization.
Sheikh Safiur Rahman al Mubarakpuri describes the conversion of Abu Sufyan:
After making full preparation, the Prophet (p) proceeded to Makkah at the head of ten thousand soldiers on the 10th of Ramadan 8 AH… [4]
…At Al-Abwa, the Muslims came across Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith and Abdullah bin Umaiyah, the Prophet’s cousins, but, on account of the harm they had inflicted, and their satiric language against the believers, they were not welcomed. [4]
Ali (ra) addressed Abu Sufyan to go and request the Prophet (p) for pardon and confess his ill-behaviour in a manner similar to that of the brothers of Yusuf (the Prophet Joseph, p):
“They said: ‘By Allah! Indeed Allah has preferred you above us, and we have been sinners’” [12:91]
Abu Sufyan followed Ali’s advice , to which the Prophet (p) quoted Allah’s Words:
“He said: No reproach on you this day, may Allah forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!’” [12:92]
Abu Sufyan recited some verses paying a generous tribute to the Prophet (p) and professing Islam as his only religion [1] [4]
So this was the point Abu Sufyan accepted Islam – clearly he was NOT forced to accept Islam, despite there being threats to his life as well as opposition to him due to his past [5]. In fact Abu Sufyan’s wife converted to Islam as well despite having chewed the liver of Hamza (the Prophet’s uncle) [6]
Abu Sufyan's conversion described by Sa'd Yusuf Abu Aziz
Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz also describes Abu Sufyan’s conversion which clearly illustrates Abu Sufyan was intent on gaining the pleasure of Prophet Muhammad (p) - he was not coerced at the point of a sword:
The light of faith shone into the heart of Abu Sufyan while the Messenger of Allah was preparing for the conquest of Makkah. Abu Sufyan and his son, Ja’far left Makkah for Madinah with the sole intention of submitting to the Lord of the worlds. When the Prophet (p) saw him, he turned away from him. He humbled himself before the Prophet (p) imploring him for the pleasure. He would earn his pleasure or else he would hold the hand of his son and both of them would walk in the wilderness until they would die of hunger and thirst.
The Prophet eventually relented toward him and he became a good Muslim afterwards. [3]
Abu Sufyan’s conversion was sincere
Of course, if a conversion is forced it is not going to be a faithful “conversion”. Abu Sufyan’s conversion was sincere, so much so that he even put his life on the line by standing firm in protecting the Prophet (p) in the Battle of Hunayn [7]
Abu Sufyan’s sincerity in Islam is highlighted further by his words at the time of his passing away:
Abu Ishaq As-Sibai said: when Abu Sufyan bin Al Harith bin Abdul Muttalib approached his death he said “Do not weep over my death for since I became a Muslim, I have not been tarnished” [8]
Conclusion
Islamophobes isolate narrations and add their agenda-based spin to such in order to prop up their misguided argumentation. We should always be mindful of learning from those who are privy to more knowledge than folk on Islamophobic forums. The SCHOLARS are people we should be relying upon for Islamic instructions and teachings.
The Quran teaches us there is no compulsion in religion
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower [Quran 2:256, Pikthal translation]
Sheikh Yasir Qadhi’s speech on Islamophobia
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] Abu Sufyan accepted Islam at this point and thereafter became a good Muslim. The Prophet (p) loved him and even testified that he would be in Paradise. See Zadul-Ma’ad 2/162. 163 (Footnote from page 462 of Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002)
[2] Islam - A Short History, Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press, 2001, p20
[3] Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p281- 282
[4] Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, 461-462
[5] Before they got near the camp, they met Abbas (ra), the Prophet’s uncle. He informed Abu Sufyan of the situation and advised him to accept Islam and persuade his people to surrender before Muhammad (p); otherwise his head would be struck off.
Under the prevailing compelling circumstances, Abu Sufyan went in the company of Abbas (ra) seeking the chance of meeting the Prophet (p). The Muslims were furious to see Abu Sufyan and wanted to kill him on the spot. But the two men managed, not without difficulties, to see Allah’s Messenger (p) who advised that they see him the following day. The Prophet (p) addressed Abu Sufyan saying “Woe to you! Isn’t it time for you to bear witness to the Oneness of Allah and Prophethood of Muhammad?” Here he began to request the Prophet (p) in the most sincere words that testify to the Prophet’s generosity and mild temper begging for pardon and forgiveness, and professing wholeheartedly the new Faith.
[Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p462-463]
[6] Upon the conquest of Mecca, the Meccans gathered to pledge loyalty to the Prophet (p), this included the wife of Abu Sufyan:
…Hind bint Utbah, Abu Sufyan’s wife, came in the group of women disguised lest the Prophet (p) should recognize and account for her, having chewed the liver of Hamzah (ra), his uncle.
The Prophet (p) accepted their allegiance on condition that they associate none with Allah, to which they immediately agreed. He added that they should not practice theft. Here Hind complained that her husband, Abu Sufyan, was tight-fisted. Her husband interrupted granting all his worldly possessions to her. The Prophet (p) laughed and recognized the woman. She requested him to extend his pardon to her and to forgive all her previous sins. Some other conditions were imposed including the prohibition of adultery, killing of infants or fabricating falsehood. To all these orders, Hind replied positively swearing that she would not have come to take an oath of allegiance if she had had the least seed of disobedience to him. On returning home, she broke her idol admitting her delusion over stone-gods.
[Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p470-471]
[7] Abu Sufyan was by the side of the Prophet (p) holding the rein of his riding animal fending off attacks against the Prophet (p). When the dust of the intense battle subsided and the Muslims obtained a resounding victory, the Messenger of Allah became even more fond of Abu Sufyan. He was amongst those who were steadfast with him on that day. He demonstrated the sincerity of his Islam. [Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p283]
[8] Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p284
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Dr Nabeel Qureshi's Whopper of a LIE!!!
For all the latest refutations and responses to Nabeel Qureshi, please see:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Nabeel%20Qureshi
I’ve never understood the willingness of the archetypal Christian missionary to speak upon the topic of Islam whilst having a poor grasp of the subject matter. At times Christian missionaries make errors through a lack of knowledge whilst at other times they just present lies – either fabricated by their evangelical predecessors/contemporaries or products of their own fertile and dishonest imaginations.
Nabeel Qureshi's latest falsehood is absurd to an extreme
Dr Nabeel Qureshi’s latest whopper of a fabrication (LIE) is a new one to me – I’ve honestly NEVER heard this lie before despite having investigated Christian outreaches to Muslims for some time now. Nabeel Qureshi was alleging Muhammad (p) asked his followers to pray for him in order for him to attain forgiveness and entry into paradise!!!
Now, that is an outrageous lie that the most gullible of Christian audiences would have difficulty swallowing. Nevertheless, our Nabeel presented it having primed the audience with the bog standard Christian missionary trust-me I’m-an-ex-muslim-routine.
Here is Dr Nabeel Qureshi misinforming his Christian audience
If the video does not play it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_HxKbvraNc
Let the people know of your misinformation...
In my view, Dr Nabeel Qureshi will not even bother to rectify the situation – he will not bother to contact those he peddled this lie to and nor will he bother to apologise, repent or abjure himself – his co-religionists will remain shtum and avoid censuring him. I would love to be proven wrong – Nabeel feel free to do a spot of damage-control with this one via a public correction, apology and repentance.
Nabeel, if you EVER decide to put forward a presentation on Islam in the future PLEASE have it checked by a MUSLIM – email it off to a Muslim scholar or a MUSLIM apologist – Adnan Rashid, Ehteshaam Gulam, Nadir Ahmed, Sami Zaatari, Shadeed Lewis etc.. That way, you will ensure you do not mislead your Christian audience again – you don’t want to mislead them again, or do you?
Nabeel, answer by offering your apologies and repentance.
NOTE: I genuinely believe Nabeel Qureshi has been influenced by the peer pressure of the dishonest rabble-rousers who are associated with him – hence Nabeel Qureshi’s episodes of deception. Nabeel, I reckon you can be a decent bloke, please look into your friendships and revise accordingly. You owe them NOTHING. Friendship is NEVER more worthy than the TRUTH. If you want to help advance the truth please start by disassociating yourself from such folk and admonishing them for their espoused falsehoods.
Lessons to be learned
We should NEVER take advantage of an unchecked platform nor of the innocence of our co-religionists. We should always try to present matters in a truthful fashion.
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Nabeel%20Qureshi
I’ve never understood the willingness of the archetypal Christian missionary to speak upon the topic of Islam whilst having a poor grasp of the subject matter. At times Christian missionaries make errors through a lack of knowledge whilst at other times they just present lies – either fabricated by their evangelical predecessors/contemporaries or products of their own fertile and dishonest imaginations.
Nabeel Qureshi's latest falsehood is absurd to an extreme
Dr Nabeel Qureshi’s latest whopper of a fabrication (LIE) is a new one to me – I’ve honestly NEVER heard this lie before despite having investigated Christian outreaches to Muslims for some time now. Nabeel Qureshi was alleging Muhammad (p) asked his followers to pray for him in order for him to attain forgiveness and entry into paradise!!!
Now, that is an outrageous lie that the most gullible of Christian audiences would have difficulty swallowing. Nevertheless, our Nabeel presented it having primed the audience with the bog standard Christian missionary trust-me I’m-an-ex-muslim-routine.
Here is Dr Nabeel Qureshi misinforming his Christian audience
If the video does not play it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_HxKbvraNc
Let the people know of your misinformation...
In my view, Dr Nabeel Qureshi will not even bother to rectify the situation – he will not bother to contact those he peddled this lie to and nor will he bother to apologise, repent or abjure himself – his co-religionists will remain shtum and avoid censuring him. I would love to be proven wrong – Nabeel feel free to do a spot of damage-control with this one via a public correction, apology and repentance.
Nabeel, if you EVER decide to put forward a presentation on Islam in the future PLEASE have it checked by a MUSLIM – email it off to a Muslim scholar or a MUSLIM apologist – Adnan Rashid, Ehteshaam Gulam, Nadir Ahmed, Sami Zaatari, Shadeed Lewis etc.. That way, you will ensure you do not mislead your Christian audience again – you don’t want to mislead them again, or do you?
Nabeel, answer by offering your apologies and repentance.
NOTE: I genuinely believe Nabeel Qureshi has been influenced by the peer pressure of the dishonest rabble-rousers who are associated with him – hence Nabeel Qureshi’s episodes of deception. Nabeel, I reckon you can be a decent bloke, please look into your friendships and revise accordingly. You owe them NOTHING. Friendship is NEVER more worthy than the TRUTH. If you want to help advance the truth please start by disassociating yourself from such folk and admonishing them for their espoused falsehoods.
Lessons to be learned
We should NEVER take advantage of an unchecked platform nor of the innocence of our co-religionists. We should always try to present matters in a truthful fashion.
Learn about Islam:
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
TAGS: New York donations, events, missionary tricks, distortions, subterfuge, acts 17, answeringmuslims.com, answeringchristianity, debates, salvation, churches, david wood, sam Shamoun, Bassam Zawadi, evangelism, ministries, Jesus, prophets, Bible, ironshaprensiron, abn, Abdullah kunde
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Beyond Comprehension: Sam Shamoun’s Ignorance and Belligerence
Sam Shamoun’s ignorance is only preceded by his belligerence. In his latest church-shaming episode, Sam Shamoun erroneously appeals to the lie of AllahuAkbar meaning “God is a mouse in Hebrew. This lie was unveiled by us here.
Sam Shamoun takes this lie one disgraceful step further by using the word “rat” instead of mouse – in an effort to insult. However, this man has no connection with sound thought as he has wound up insulting Arab Christians as Arab Christians would identify and agree with AllahuAkbar (God is the greatest).
Here is the awful screen shot of this belligerent at work (Shamounian is Sam Shamoun’s handle on YouTube – double click to enlarge the image). It has been isolated as the capture would include his other "remarks" which are of a similar nature but not the topic of discussion for today.
This dishonest man suggests there is pornography in Islam – this is another ignorant claim as pornography is NOT allowed in Islam – see here. The "stone kissing" comment is addressed here
He also accused God of being deceptive and lying – God is Al Haqq (the Truth), He does not lie nor does He deceive the truthful. Sam Shamoun clearly proves he has no “holy spirit” within him – he is so misguided that he wound up insulting God according to Christianity too as knowledgeable Arab Christians are grossly offended by Shamoun’s disconnection from holiness.
Sam is blind to the Irony
Sam Shamoun works for an ARAB CHRISTIAN station. Whilst espousing such blasphemous sentiment our Sam has the gall to ask for cash on behalf of his ARAB Christian TV station (ABNSAT) – quite what they make of Sam’s latest blasphemous bigotry is beyond us. I wonder what Bassim Gorial, the Iraqi Christian director of ABN, thinks of Sam Shamoun’s latest insults…
Here is Sam Shamoun asking for cash on behalf of the Aramaic Broadcasting Network – owned by an IRAQI Christian
Christians “learning” from Sam Shamoun
Recently, a Christian (James White) claimed he “learns” from Sam Shamoun and Muslims hate Sam Shamoun due to his argumentation against Islam. If James wants to learn from a dishonest rabble-rouser then that is his choice BUT he should learn Muslims do not hate Shamoun for his shoddy arguments against Islam; we hate him for his lies, insults and blasphemies – the very same lies, insults and blasphemies James and Shamoun’s colleagues are unwilling to defend or rebuke – silence is quite telling at times!
Only the disingenuous and/or unaware would take Shamoun for a teacher or even give him cash. Christians, it’s not difficult to buy books and “learn” about Islam for yourself rather than relying on this dishonest man or any other self-styled “expert” on Islam.
PLEASE stop giving him cash and/or encouragement – the man is clearly shaming the church and doing all within his power to end Muslim-Christian civility and dialogue. Sad but true!
Christians, how do you expect us to believe you have the holy spirit when your co-religionist behaves in such a shameful fashion and is NOT rebuked by any of you!
Muslims are the brothers/sisters of Jesus
Muslim defends Jesus against secularists
Learn more about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Sam Shamoun takes this lie one disgraceful step further by using the word “rat” instead of mouse – in an effort to insult. However, this man has no connection with sound thought as he has wound up insulting Arab Christians as Arab Christians would identify and agree with AllahuAkbar (God is the greatest).
Here is the awful screen shot of this belligerent at work (Shamounian is Sam Shamoun’s handle on YouTube – double click to enlarge the image). It has been isolated as the capture would include his other "remarks" which are of a similar nature but not the topic of discussion for today.
Sam Shamoun’s other rabble-rousing words are addressed
This dishonest man suggests there is pornography in Islam – this is another ignorant claim as pornography is NOT allowed in Islam – see here. The "stone kissing" comment is addressed here
He also accused God of being deceptive and lying – God is Al Haqq (the Truth), He does not lie nor does He deceive the truthful. Sam Shamoun clearly proves he has no “holy spirit” within him – he is so misguided that he wound up insulting God according to Christianity too as knowledgeable Arab Christians are grossly offended by Shamoun’s disconnection from holiness.
Sam is blind to the Irony
Sam Shamoun works for an ARAB CHRISTIAN station. Whilst espousing such blasphemous sentiment our Sam has the gall to ask for cash on behalf of his ARAB Christian TV station (ABNSAT) – quite what they make of Sam’s latest blasphemous bigotry is beyond us. I wonder what Bassim Gorial, the Iraqi Christian director of ABN, thinks of Sam Shamoun’s latest insults…
Here is Sam Shamoun asking for cash on behalf of the Aramaic Broadcasting Network – owned by an IRAQI Christian
Christians “learning” from Sam Shamoun
Recently, a Christian (James White) claimed he “learns” from Sam Shamoun and Muslims hate Sam Shamoun due to his argumentation against Islam. If James wants to learn from a dishonest rabble-rouser then that is his choice BUT he should learn Muslims do not hate Shamoun for his shoddy arguments against Islam; we hate him for his lies, insults and blasphemies – the very same lies, insults and blasphemies James and Shamoun’s colleagues are unwilling to defend or rebuke – silence is quite telling at times!
Only the disingenuous and/or unaware would take Shamoun for a teacher or even give him cash. Christians, it’s not difficult to buy books and “learn” about Islam for yourself rather than relying on this dishonest man or any other self-styled “expert” on Islam.
PLEASE stop giving him cash and/or encouragement – the man is clearly shaming the church and doing all within his power to end Muslim-Christian civility and dialogue. Sad but true!
Christians, how do you expect us to believe you have the holy spirit when your co-religionist behaves in such a shameful fashion and is NOT rebuked by any of you!
Muslims are the brothers/sisters of Jesus
Muslim defends Jesus against secularists
Learn more about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Has ANY Christian Answered Dr Zakir Naik’s Biblical Numerical Contradictions?
In this 5 minute video, Dr Zakir Naik reels off a load of alleged numerical contradictions within the Bible. Contradictions can be harmonized by advancing “rounding off” and the idea of difficulties not pertaining to the same event BUT can they ALL be answered in a satisfying manner?
Bible: Huge and unbelievable mathematical contradictions?
There is a transcript of this video – appended in the comment section. I wonder what the lay Christian would make of such a list of problems.
In the Christian world, the Bible was generally immune to criticism and such scrutiny until the Renaissance:
“People’s view of the Bible went through dramatic changes down the centuries. For a long time and until the fourteenth century, the Bible was looked upon as the “Word of God” which could contain no error or false information…” [1]
“Slow but steady change, however, started to occur to this attitude with the advent of the Renaissance, which began in the fourteenth century Italy before spreading to other parts of Europe…” [1]
“The Biblical texts which remained immune to criticism even when all kinds of writings and concepts were being thoroughly re-examined, had finally to surrender itself to the methods of document criticism”. [1]
It’s interesting to note this enlightenment as to the Bible’s unreliability only began to sprout its shoots in the fourteenth century whilst a religion in the East had ALREADY taught the Bible was a corrupted text – Islam.
Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. [Pikthal’s translation of Quran, 2:79]
[1] Quotes taken from pages 53 and 54, History Testifies to the Infallibility of the Quran – Early History of the Children of Israel by Dr Louay Fatoohi and Prof Shetha Al-Dargazelli, Adam Publishers and Distributers, 1999
Learn more about Jesus and Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Bible: Huge and unbelievable mathematical contradictions?
There is a transcript of this video – appended in the comment section. I wonder what the lay Christian would make of such a list of problems.
In the Christian world, the Bible was generally immune to criticism and such scrutiny until the Renaissance:
“People’s view of the Bible went through dramatic changes down the centuries. For a long time and until the fourteenth century, the Bible was looked upon as the “Word of God” which could contain no error or false information…” [1]
“Slow but steady change, however, started to occur to this attitude with the advent of the Renaissance, which began in the fourteenth century Italy before spreading to other parts of Europe…” [1]
“The Biblical texts which remained immune to criticism even when all kinds of writings and concepts were being thoroughly re-examined, had finally to surrender itself to the methods of document criticism”. [1]
It’s interesting to note this enlightenment as to the Bible’s unreliability only began to sprout its shoots in the fourteenth century whilst a religion in the East had ALREADY taught the Bible was a corrupted text – Islam.
Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. [Pikthal’s translation of Quran, 2:79]
[1] Quotes taken from pages 53 and 54, History Testifies to the Infallibility of the Quran – Early History of the Children of Israel by Dr Louay Fatoohi and Prof Shetha Al-Dargazelli, Adam Publishers and Distributers, 1999
Learn more about Jesus and Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Outrageous Aspersions from Hogan Elijah Hagbard - "Debate Cancelled"
 |
| Phantom debate crashers |
I’m subbed to Mr Hagbard’s blog and noticed his return - I began perusing his material and to my total shock and dismay he has alleged I (little old Yahya Snow) could have been responsible for cancelling a Birmingham debate against Mr Ayaz.
Could everybody put aside their paranoia for a second – I never knew this “debate” was even arranged, never mind me being the one responsible for its cancellation! [Mr Hagbard is in red]
"Earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc."
So Hogan deducts this Anjum Ahmed is me because his “writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow??? If I was to email Hogan I would use MY email address and identify myself. I have no idea who this "Anjum" chap is. Does he even exist?
"Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeared to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team"
"Campaign"? Really? Nobody told me everybody “knows” I have been “playing dirty”. Paranoid, just a little?
"This is the eamil I received from this Muslim, which I believe is Yahya Snow (notice the fellow Brit thing, a sentence I have only heard from this particular propagandaist)"
??? So this bloke (if he even exists) used a phrase I have used and Mr Hagbard’s mind began working overtime. Sad. Is it not possible for others to use the “fellow Brit” phrase? Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase? Is it not possible for myself to have enough concealment ability in order to drop a potentially incriminating phrase – if the email was from me?
“Propagandist”?? That’s not very “Christ-like”. Actually, its something Mr Shamoun would spout. Does this mean Mr Hagbard is Mr Shamoun as they have used a similar turn of phrase…according to the paranoid logic of Mr Hagbard it certainly does.
Use a logical approach, Mr Hogan Elijah Hagbard (my "fellow Brit")
"This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute..."
Mr Hagbard would be advised to STOP speculating and START investigating the issues before presenting such outlandish conjecture.
I suggest Mr Hagbard emails “Ayaz” immediately and finds out as to the real reason why this debate was called off. Once he does this, I expect a public apology for his outrageous aspersions.
NOTE: If I was bent on “cancelling” a debate in Birmingham it would not be too difficult for me to get hold of the organisers and ask them to reconsider – I would hardly require the underhand tactics Mr Hagbard’s paranoia is intimating. Furthermore, if the said debate was cancelled by me it would certainly have been mentioned on this blog or via email to Mr Hagbard – I try to operate in an upfront fashion in my blogging of apologetics.
Mr Hagbard seems to have taken a page out from the book of Mr Wood. Mr Wood had a debate cancelled and he began to lash out at everybody and anybody. WITHOUT any proof at all he accused little old Yahya Snow (that’s me), an extremist group (Revolution Muslim) and Abdullah al Andalusi (and who knows who else was accused) publicly for such a cancellation WITHOUT any evidence but merely based on his over active mind. This is precisely what Mr Hagbard is doing here.
I suggest Mr Hagbard adopts a more reasoned approach next time his debate is “cancelled” – it’s not difficult to email your opponent and ASK to the reason behind the cancellation. It beats accusing someone who had NO clue this “debate” was even arranged. Believe it or not I do have a life!
I WAS EVEN ACCUSED OF BEING THIS BIRMINGHAM “AYAZ” BY SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET (IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT IT WAS MR HAGBARD WHO THOUGHT I WAS THE BIRMINGHAM AYAZ!!!!). Welcome to the odd world of Christian internet apologetics. Wow, just wow!
The Holy Spirit
When Christians behave and reason in such a fashion whilst simultaneoulsy claiming they have the Holy Spirit (they believe this is a person of God) dwelling within them, you just have to wonder as to the subtle manner in which they negate their beliefs. Think about it.
In sum
It was not me. The New Year has left My Hagbard more than a little paranoid. I EXPECT a public apology from Mr Hagbard soon – email the organisers and get confirmation it had nothing to do with me, pronto!
BTW, I forgive Mr Hagbard for casting such aspersions. May Allah guide him to the truth behind the cancellation of his debate and the ultimate Truth. Ameen.
Do you believe in the incarnation
The veil in the Bible
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
David Wood of Answering Muslims Taking Advantage of the Raped
David Wood has been touted as a public speaker on Islam – his potential clientele seem to be evangelical folk in the New York area. The man has the audacity to even collect cash for such “work”.
David Wood: ignorant of Sharia and insensitive to Pakistani Christians
David Wood churns out his usual trick of manipulating the misery of a Christian rape victim at the hands of a Muslim (in Pakistan) by copying and pasting a heartbreaking rape story of a Pakistani Christian girl whilst adding his own agenda-laden commentary. He tries to link it to “Sharia”:
“And people say we're a bunch of racists and bigots because we oppose Sharia”
Is he for real? Really? What has this story got to do with Sharia? NOTHING!!!
Can somebody tell this chap, Sharia OPPOSES these rapes in Pakistan and Sharia sees this rape as PUNISHABLE and HARAM (Forbidden). If Sharia was allowed to prevail in this instance, the rapist would be punished!
David Wood’s embarrassing “four witnesses” misconception - ignorant or deceptive?
Look, I’m pretty sure this chap has been educated in this regard by the likes of Adnan Rashid, Abdullah al Andalusi, Bassam Zawadi (and other Muslims who debate folk such as David) BUT our David is STILL advancing such myths:
“Good luck getting a conviction. The girl doesn't have four Muslim witnesses to testify on her behalf”
David, please stop embarrassing yourself. The hadd punishment requires four witnesses (or confession) BUT the discretionary punishment does NOT require four witnesses. Therefore, four witnesses are NOT required in order to convict a rapist. It is NOT complicated – why have you been unable to comprehend this?
I mean, you should know this ever so basic information as you are being paid to “lecture” on Islam in Churches. Perhaps these churches care very little about truth and accuracy BUT we do have a regard for the truth, hence this posting to help nudge you into the realm of accuracy, honesty and sensitivity.
Dave, please educate yourself before making yourself look silly. Here is an article we prepared earlier – so Islamophobes, such as yourself can learn a thing or two about Sharia and rape:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-about-rape-in-islam.html
Jaw-dropping fear-mongering by “Brian”
Brian said...
I keep saying we need to do like Italy did and not recognize Islam as a legit religion. If we don't stop it now this will be the US soon muslims will run around raping every non muslim in sight.
I think Brian has been watching too many horror movies. Brian, try having a look at NationMaster’s rape statistics – NO Muslim country is in the top 30 and NO Muslim country has more rapes per capita than America, UK, Australia, France, Spain, New Zealand, and Canada…
Do you want to expunge your paranoid comment so you stop looking silly?
Message to Islamophobes – STOP using rapes of Pakistani Christians to further your bashing of Muslims. Nobody of any real consideration is going to convert to Christianity via such underhand missionary methods. Grow up!
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
David Wood: ignorant of Sharia and insensitive to Pakistani Christians
David Wood churns out his usual trick of manipulating the misery of a Christian rape victim at the hands of a Muslim (in Pakistan) by copying and pasting a heartbreaking rape story of a Pakistani Christian girl whilst adding his own agenda-laden commentary. He tries to link it to “Sharia”:
“And people say we're a bunch of racists and bigots because we oppose Sharia”
Is he for real? Really? What has this story got to do with Sharia? NOTHING!!!
Can somebody tell this chap, Sharia OPPOSES these rapes in Pakistan and Sharia sees this rape as PUNISHABLE and HARAM (Forbidden). If Sharia was allowed to prevail in this instance, the rapist would be punished!
David Wood’s embarrassing “four witnesses” misconception - ignorant or deceptive?
Look, I’m pretty sure this chap has been educated in this regard by the likes of Adnan Rashid, Abdullah al Andalusi, Bassam Zawadi (and other Muslims who debate folk such as David) BUT our David is STILL advancing such myths:
“Good luck getting a conviction. The girl doesn't have four Muslim witnesses to testify on her behalf”
David, please stop embarrassing yourself. The hadd punishment requires four witnesses (or confession) BUT the discretionary punishment does NOT require four witnesses. Therefore, four witnesses are NOT required in order to convict a rapist. It is NOT complicated – why have you been unable to comprehend this?
I mean, you should know this ever so basic information as you are being paid to “lecture” on Islam in Churches. Perhaps these churches care very little about truth and accuracy BUT we do have a regard for the truth, hence this posting to help nudge you into the realm of accuracy, honesty and sensitivity.
Dave, please educate yourself before making yourself look silly. Here is an article we prepared earlier – so Islamophobes, such as yourself can learn a thing or two about Sharia and rape:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/facts-about-rape-in-islam.html
Jaw-dropping fear-mongering by “Brian”
Brian said...
I keep saying we need to do like Italy did and not recognize Islam as a legit religion. If we don't stop it now this will be the US soon muslims will run around raping every non muslim in sight.
I think Brian has been watching too many horror movies. Brian, try having a look at NationMaster’s rape statistics – NO Muslim country is in the top 30 and NO Muslim country has more rapes per capita than America, UK, Australia, France, Spain, New Zealand, and Canada…
Do you want to expunge your paranoid comment so you stop looking silly?
Message to Islamophobes – STOP using rapes of Pakistani Christians to further your bashing of Muslims. Nobody of any real consideration is going to convert to Christianity via such underhand missionary methods. Grow up!
Learn about Islam
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Muslim Scholars on Rape
For some time now, there has been an undercurrent on the internet which claims rape of women (especially Christian/Western women) is allowed by Muslims [1]. This is not the case at all – essentially, those who propagate such outrage are either ignorant or have a desire in mischief-making.
It is high time to derail the Islamophobic mischief-makers by presenting a few facts (via Islamic scholars) which will help you to see through the Islamophobes’ hateful and insensitive plots
Do Muslims even have a word for rape? Yes!
The Arabic word ightisab (rape) refers to taking something wrongfully by force. It is now used exclusively to refer to transgression against the honor of women by force. [2]
Is rape a crime in Islam? Yes!
The renowned Saudi scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, condemns the act of rape and describes it as a CRIME which is FORBIDDEN and punishable:
This is an abhorrent crime that is forbidden in all religions and in the minds of all wise people and those who possess sound human nature. All earthly systems and laws regard this action as abhorrent and impose the strictest penalties on it.
Islam has a clear stance which states that this repugnant action is haram (forbidden) and imposes a deterrent punishment on the one who commits it [2]
So it is a myth to say Islam condones rape or allows rapists to go free? Yes!
This is confirmed by Sheikh Faraz Rabbani:
However, it is a myth to say that Islam would in any way condone rape, or allow a rapist to go free for this terrible crime against an innocent human being and against society
Is the rape victim punished for being raped? No!
Ibn `Abdul-Barr (may Allah bless his soul) said
There is no punishment for the woman if it is true that he forced her and overpowered her. (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146). [2]
To punish the rapist, are four witnesses required? No!
Sheikh Rabbani states: The four witness requirement applies only to the prescribed hadd punishment (which in the case of a married person could be death and for the non-married, 100 lashes). [Marghinani, Hidaya] This punishment is only applied in very rare cases, as is clear, and is meant to be a social deterrent, above all.
As the classical and contemporary jurists (such as Mufti Taqi Usmani) have made clear, a rapist can be convicted on lesser evidence (including scientific evidence, such as DNA tests and medical reports) for discretionary punishments. These discretionary punishments are left up to the legal system to determine. [3]
So, the hadd punishment requires four witnesses but other discretionary punishments for the rapists do not? Correct!
Ibn `Abdul-Barr said:
The scholars are unanimously agreed that the rapist is to be subjected to the hadd punishment if there is clear evidence against him that he deserves the hadd punishment, or if he admits to that. Otherwise, he is to be punished (that is, if there is no proof that the hadd punishment for zina may be carried out against him because he does not confess and there are not four witnesses, then the judge may punish him and stipulate a punishment that will deter him and others like him)… (Al-Istidhkaar, 7/146). [2]
Can the rapist still receive hadd punishment even if he does not use a weapon? Yes!
Sheikh Mohammad Saleh al Munajjid writes: In addition, the rapist is subject to the hadd punishment for zina, even if the rape was not carried out at knifepoint or gunpoint.
What about rape at knifepoint?
Sheikh al Munajjid states: If the use of a weapon was threatened, then he is a muharib, and is to be subjected to the hadd punishment described in the verse in which Allah says (The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter) (Al-Ma’idah 5:33).
So the judge has the choice of the four punishments mentioned in this verse and may choose whichever he thinks is most suitable to attain the objective, which is to spread peace and security in society, and ward off evildoers and aggressors. [2]
Rape statistics are relatively low in Muslim countries
NationMaster’s per capita rape statistics do not include a Muslim country in the top 30. The statistics show the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Spain and France as having more rapes per capita than any Muslim country. [4]
Islamophobes need self control
I have composed this short blog post to help counter the Islamophobic agendas on the internet. It is depressing to observe haters insensitively wading through the misery of rape victims in order to bash Muslims and Islam. I ask those who peddle and/or support such a derisory lampooning tactic to rethink their ways.
Please realise Muslims on the internet are not liable or answerable for the sins of a handful of criminals within the Islamic community – would you like it if people began lampooning you for the indiscretions of your fellow Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs etc? No, you would not as it would be UNFAIR.
Therefore, you should stop harassing us with reports of rape perpetrated by sinful Muslim men – you are simply using the rape victims’ misery as fuel to bash regular, law-abiding Muslims – many of whom are teenagers looking to use the internet for social or study purposes!
Sharia Law against terrorism:
Christians having dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
Polish women in Britain and British Christian Islamophobes
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
Polish women in Britain and British Christian Islamophobes
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
References
[1] Islamophobes have been insensitively presenting rapes in Western countries committed by Muslim immigrants to disgracefully prop up their vile and erroneous argumentation.
[2] Sheikh al Munajjid discuses the punishment for the rapists. Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1125407868541#ixzz1BLjRVJLc
[3] A question of whether four witnesses to rape is required is asked of the scholar, Sheikh Faraz Rabbani. http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=12121
[4] NationMaster’s rape per capita stats:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Imam Moustafa Zayed Debates Robert Spencer - ABN
Sadly the debate is confined to one topic; it would be absolutely catastrophic for the career of Spencer if Zayed had an opportunity to grill him on the lies, deceptions and bouts of sheer ignorance within his written work. I know he has already been panned in many forms – Zayed has proverbially slapped him around over 400 pages of written refutation – but it’s always nice to see folk such as Spencer derailed via live confrontation.
ABN promo video for the debate
Looking forward to it
Kudos to ABN for setting up the encounter.However, this missionary channel (ABNSat) seems to be transfixed on framing Islam for the 9/11 atrocity and the band of ignoramuses who comprise Al Qaeda. Can we really expect a fair shake? I don’t know. I hope they don’t wheel out the circus act (Shoebat, Saleem, Choudry and Bakri) half way through.
Though Spencer is dishonest he is undeniably smart – hence his longevity in the business of Islamophobia. He really does appear to be the Mr Teflon of Islamophobia - despite the numerous folk who have highlighted his shoddy ways, Spencer is still very much in business due to his shameless nature and his smart ability to deflect.
I hope Robert Spencer does not throw out a whopper of a lie – in his book he audaciously claimed statues of Mary and Jesus (p) were kept (by Muhammad, p) at the Kaba! This is an audacious lie - no idols were kept by Prophet Muhammad [1].
Quite how the shameless Spencer can share a podium with imam Zayed in the knowledge his whoppers, blunders and misdirecting have been catalogued in a 400 page tome of a refutation is beyond us. Actually, it is not – Spencer is another shameless Islamophobe who is milking the cash-cow called Islamophobia.
The veil and hijab are Biblical
Round 2 – Robert Spencer sniggering whilst being educated
Come to the Truth today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] The Kaba was built by Ishmael and Abraham (pbut) and became a centre for Abrahamic monotheism. However, with time idol worship was introduced by later generations – the first person to introduce idols to the Kaba was Amr bin Luhai, subsequently idolatry spread all over Mecca and the Hejaz.
It is well known the Prophet (P), upon the conquest of Mecca, the 360 idols were removed. [See Arraheequal Makhtoum, pages 28, 45, 465]
“He [Muhammad] destroyed the idols around the Kaba and rededicated it to Allah, the one God…” [Islam, a Short History – Karen Armstrong, p20]
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered every single item painting, painting and statue, depiction of any idol, character, prophet or angel to be destroyed. [p177, The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed]
ABN promo video for the debate
Looking forward to it
Kudos to ABN for setting up the encounter.However, this missionary channel (ABNSat) seems to be transfixed on framing Islam for the 9/11 atrocity and the band of ignoramuses who comprise Al Qaeda. Can we really expect a fair shake? I don’t know. I hope they don’t wheel out the circus act (Shoebat, Saleem, Choudry and Bakri) half way through.
Though Spencer is dishonest he is undeniably smart – hence his longevity in the business of Islamophobia. He really does appear to be the Mr Teflon of Islamophobia - despite the numerous folk who have highlighted his shoddy ways, Spencer is still very much in business due to his shameless nature and his smart ability to deflect.
I hope Robert Spencer does not throw out a whopper of a lie – in his book he audaciously claimed statues of Mary and Jesus (p) were kept (by Muhammad, p) at the Kaba! This is an audacious lie - no idols were kept by Prophet Muhammad [1].
Quite how the shameless Spencer can share a podium with imam Zayed in the knowledge his whoppers, blunders and misdirecting have been catalogued in a 400 page tome of a refutation is beyond us. Actually, it is not – Spencer is another shameless Islamophobe who is milking the cash-cow called Islamophobia.
The veil and hijab are Biblical
Round 2 – Robert Spencer sniggering whilst being educated
Come to the Truth today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] The Kaba was built by Ishmael and Abraham (pbut) and became a centre for Abrahamic monotheism. However, with time idol worship was introduced by later generations – the first person to introduce idols to the Kaba was Amr bin Luhai, subsequently idolatry spread all over Mecca and the Hejaz.
It is well known the Prophet (P), upon the conquest of Mecca, the 360 idols were removed. [See Arraheequal Makhtoum, pages 28, 45, 465]
“He [Muhammad] destroyed the idols around the Kaba and rededicated it to Allah, the one God…” [Islam, a Short History – Karen Armstrong, p20]
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered every single item painting, painting and statue, depiction of any idol, character, prophet or angel to be destroyed. [p177, The lies about Muhammad - Moustafa Zayed]
Does the Arabic, "Allahu Akbar", mean "Allah is a mouse" in Hebrew? No.
There is a claim being banded about on the internet within Islamophobic circles that dictates “AllahuAkbar” (الله أكبر) means Allah is a mouse in Hebrew. This is an obvious falsity based on ignorance and/or deception.
"Allah Akbar" means Allah is the greatest (a more literal translation is; Allah is greater). Akbar (اكبر) refers to greatest. In Hebrew the word for mouse is Achbar (עַכְבָּר).
In the Hebrew word for “mouse” (achbar עַכְבָּר), the kaf כ (the second letter, reading from right to left) omits the dagesh (the dot in the middle of the letter [1]) therefore the pronunciation of achbar is not with a “k” sound but with a “ch” sound (“ch” as in the Scottish “loch” or the German “achtung”). Thus, anybody who is familiar with the pronunciation of both languages will know AllahuAkbar does NOT mean Allah is a mouse in Hebrew. They are pronounced noticeably dissimilar to each other.
In fact, the key Hebrew letter (Kaf כ) would not even sound like ﻚ in Arabic, it would sound like ﺥ
To illustrate this further I have presented the audio for the Arabic word Akbar (اكبر) and the Hebrew word for mouse (Achbar - עַכְבָּר) – you will clearly hear the two are not the same.
Christian missionaries, try not to look silly…
Please stop peddling this outrage – it is false and immature. I have already caught TWO Christians peddling this lie. One of these miscreants claimed he had consulted a “professor” at the Moody Bible Institute - I have corrected him via YouTube email and he has graciously accepted the correction.
Would the Christians like it if Muslims began sifting through Biblical Greek and Hebrew words and comparing them with like-sounding words from other languages? No. It is immature and futile the meaning in the intended language is what matters.
Ignorant Christians insult Arab Christians
These Christians are also insulting Arab Christians (i.e. the Copts) who also use the word Akbar (اكبر). Some evangelical folk just do not think before speaking. Grow up, the lot of you!
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] There are three letters in Hebrew, Bet ב, Kaf כ, and Peh פ, which change in pronunciation depending on the presence/absence of a dot called the degesh.
For the Kaf כ, if the dagesh is not present then the pronunciation would be similar to ﺥ (Ch as in lochness or the German “Achtung). If the dagesh is present then the pronunciation is similar to the English k and the Arabic ﻚ
: In the word for mouse (עַכְבָּר), the dagesh is missing from the Kaf כ so the pronunciation is NOT similar to the English “K” but is similar to the Arabic ﺥ (i.e. ch in loch).
[2] I have appended a story from an Israeli blog of a Hebrew learner making the same mistake (confusing achbar (עַכְבָּר) with akbar (اكبر). The Israeli blog confirm the two words are not phonetically the same either. However, it is a mistake untrained ears could innocently fall into. See the comment section; as the story is rather lengthy it shall not be included in the main body of the text.
"Allah Akbar" means Allah is the greatest (a more literal translation is; Allah is greater). Akbar (اكبر) refers to greatest. In Hebrew the word for mouse is Achbar (עַכְבָּר).
In the Hebrew word for “mouse” (achbar עַכְבָּר), the kaf כ (the second letter, reading from right to left) omits the dagesh (the dot in the middle of the letter [1]) therefore the pronunciation of achbar is not with a “k” sound but with a “ch” sound (“ch” as in the Scottish “loch” or the German “achtung”). Thus, anybody who is familiar with the pronunciation of both languages will know AllahuAkbar does NOT mean Allah is a mouse in Hebrew. They are pronounced noticeably dissimilar to each other.
In fact, the key Hebrew letter (Kaf כ) would not even sound like ﻚ in Arabic, it would sound like ﺥ
To illustrate this further I have presented the audio for the Arabic word Akbar (اكبر) and the Hebrew word for mouse (Achbar - עַכְבָּר) – you will clearly hear the two are not the same.
Christian missionaries, try not to look silly…
Please stop peddling this outrage – it is false and immature. I have already caught TWO Christians peddling this lie. One of these miscreants claimed he had consulted a “professor” at the Moody Bible Institute - I have corrected him via YouTube email and he has graciously accepted the correction.
Would the Christians like it if Muslims began sifting through Biblical Greek and Hebrew words and comparing them with like-sounding words from other languages? No. It is immature and futile the meaning in the intended language is what matters.
Ignorant Christians insult Arab Christians
These Christians are also insulting Arab Christians (i.e. the Copts) who also use the word Akbar (اكبر). Some evangelical folk just do not think before speaking. Grow up, the lot of you!
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] There are three letters in Hebrew, Bet ב, Kaf כ, and Peh פ, which change in pronunciation depending on the presence/absence of a dot called the degesh.
For the Kaf כ, if the dagesh is not present then the pronunciation would be similar to ﺥ (Ch as in lochness or the German “Achtung). If the dagesh is present then the pronunciation is similar to the English k and the Arabic ﻚ
: In the word for mouse (עַכְבָּר), the dagesh is missing from the Kaf כ so the pronunciation is NOT similar to the English “K” but is similar to the Arabic ﺥ (i.e. ch in loch).
[2] I have appended a story from an Israeli blog of a Hebrew learner making the same mistake (confusing achbar (עַכְבָּר) with akbar (اكبر). The Israeli blog confirm the two words are not phonetically the same either. However, it is a mistake untrained ears could innocently fall into. See the comment section; as the story is rather lengthy it shall not be included in the main body of the text.
Friday, 14 January 2011
Islamophobes Capitalise on Imam's Sex Abuse Charges
A Christian Islamophobic blog latched on to the news article of an imam in Stoke on Trent (UK) being charged for sex offences carried out against young boys. Predictably, there was no regard for sensitivities but merely a desire, on the part of the haters, to capitalise on the news article.
The hateful blog attracts, and is associated with some, real zealous Islamophobes complete with Halloween outfits. Here is a Christian lady (Tizita) commenter:
Tizita said...
You know what if the media will expose these atrocities like it does with the Catholic church then I believe 100% that the abuse with muslims outweighs the abuse with the Catholics!
I will not be surprised since i know what the haideth and the quran allow regarding sex with women, and young boys. Sick!!
A dose of truth for Tizita
Muslims are not instructed to sexually abuse men, women, children or anything else for that matter!
Please stop with the bigotry, Tizita. I would advise you to read all the Islamic evidences AGAINST the deviant sexual practices, of the sort this imam is charged with, in the book entitled Islam on Homo-sexuality by Mufti Zafeeruddin. Here is a quick excerpt to do away with your misguided comments:
It has been narrated by Hadrat Abu Huraira(ra) and Hadrat Abdullah ibn Abbas(ra) that the Prophet (p) said in one of his sermons:
A man who mishandles (sexually) a woman, a lad or a man would be resurrected with more stink than a putrid body, on Doomsday. People would be greatly distressed by his obnoxious odour, till he is thrown into the Hell. God will destroy all his (good) deeds and would not accept any recommendation or payment for him. He would encase him in a box of fire secured with iron nails which would pierce his face and body
Hadrat Abu Huraira(ra) states:
That this would be the punishment for those evil-doers who are not favoured with repentance
[See Pg79-80, Islam on Homo-sexuality by Mufti Zafferuddin, Daul Ishat]
Note to Tizita, I have NO idea what you have been reading to think this sort of deviancy is allowed in Islam; rest assured, you have not been reading Islamic material – perhaps you have been reading hoaxes from shoddy missionary websites. If you want people to think you have read some hadith literature you would be counselled to spell “hadith” correctly.
Answering Muslims Blog
Now, I know the owner of the blog has presented sexual lies about Islam in order to demonise Muslims – perhaps her bigotry is due to her being fed nonsense from David Wood and other deceptive Islamophobes or perhaps her bigotry is due to some other reason.
Please stop and think, Tizita.
And here are two miscreants we have caught spreading sex hoaxes about Islam – how many Christians have they deceived with their brand of shoddiness
More info on the hoax these charlatans were advocating:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Thighing%3F
Oh, seen as one of those associated with that Islamophobic blog has previously claimed Islam allows sex with animals, I will tell you he was telling fibs – bestiality is considered a sin in Islam. It’s quite astonishing to investigate the ways Christian Islamophobes will befool and beguile their co-religionists. Do they really want us to believe they are led by the Holy Spirit?
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
The hateful blog attracts, and is associated with some, real zealous Islamophobes complete with Halloween outfits. Here is a Christian lady (Tizita) commenter:
Tizita said...
You know what if the media will expose these atrocities like it does with the Catholic church then I believe 100% that the abuse with muslims outweighs the abuse with the Catholics!
I will not be surprised since i know what the haideth and the quran allow regarding sex with women, and young boys. Sick!!
A dose of truth for Tizita
Muslims are not instructed to sexually abuse men, women, children or anything else for that matter!
Please stop with the bigotry, Tizita. I would advise you to read all the Islamic evidences AGAINST the deviant sexual practices, of the sort this imam is charged with, in the book entitled Islam on Homo-sexuality by Mufti Zafeeruddin. Here is a quick excerpt to do away with your misguided comments:
It has been narrated by Hadrat Abu Huraira(ra) and Hadrat Abdullah ibn Abbas(ra) that the Prophet (p) said in one of his sermons:
A man who mishandles (sexually) a woman, a lad or a man would be resurrected with more stink than a putrid body, on Doomsday. People would be greatly distressed by his obnoxious odour, till he is thrown into the Hell. God will destroy all his (good) deeds and would not accept any recommendation or payment for him. He would encase him in a box of fire secured with iron nails which would pierce his face and body
Hadrat Abu Huraira(ra) states:
That this would be the punishment for those evil-doers who are not favoured with repentance
[See Pg79-80, Islam on Homo-sexuality by Mufti Zafferuddin, Daul Ishat]
Note to Tizita, I have NO idea what you have been reading to think this sort of deviancy is allowed in Islam; rest assured, you have not been reading Islamic material – perhaps you have been reading hoaxes from shoddy missionary websites. If you want people to think you have read some hadith literature you would be counselled to spell “hadith” correctly.
Answering Muslims Blog
Now, I know the owner of the blog has presented sexual lies about Islam in order to demonise Muslims – perhaps her bigotry is due to her being fed nonsense from David Wood and other deceptive Islamophobes or perhaps her bigotry is due to some other reason.
Please stop and think, Tizita.
And here are two miscreants we have caught spreading sex hoaxes about Islam – how many Christians have they deceived with their brand of shoddiness
More info on the hoax these charlatans were advocating:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Thighing%3F
Oh, seen as one of those associated with that Islamophobic blog has previously claimed Islam allows sex with animals, I will tell you he was telling fibs – bestiality is considered a sin in Islam. It’s quite astonishing to investigate the ways Christian Islamophobes will befool and beguile their co-religionists. Do they really want us to believe they are led by the Holy Spirit?
Become a Muslim today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Muslims Being Tortured in Uzbek Jails
Muslims Face Horrific Torture in Jails
By Pavol Stracansky
PRAGUE, Jan 11, 2011 (IPS) - Muslims are facing a dark future of repression and torture in Uzbekistan for years to come as the government’s relentless campaign of religious suppression continues.
At least 39 people were tortured to death last year in prisons, according to the Independent Human Rights Defenders Group (IHRDG) in Uzbekistan - a rise from 20 recorded the previous year.
IHRDG says that the torture has become steadily worse in recent years, and activists warn that the real number of those tortured to death is probably much higher as authorities cover up inmates’ abuse by sending bodies back to families in sealed coffins. Relatives of the dead are wary of reporting incidents.
Religious prisoners are also now facing the prospect of being interred for life as unilateral extra-judicial orders are handed down to extend their jail terms indefinitely, rights campaigners say.
The dictatorial regime, led by President Islam Karimov who has ruled the central Asian nation since its independence from the Soviet Union, shows no signs of letting up in its persecution of any religious groups it sees as a potential threat to its power.
Alisher Ilkhamov who works on Uzbek issues for the Open Society Foundation in London told IPS: "The torture of religious prisoners is constant and I don’t see any hope for improvement in the coming years. Muslims will continue to be repressed for a long time into the future, I have no illusions over that."
Karimov’s regime has long been held by the international community as having one of the world’s worst records on human rights.
Brutal state suppression of civil society has been well documented over the last almost two decades. The UN has described use of torture by law enforcement officials, many of whom were schooled under the KGB when the country was part of the Soviet Union, as widespread and systematic.
In at least one case it was found that a prisoner had been boiled to death, and horrific abuse of inmates at the Zhaslyk prison in the remote northwest of the country – described as a post-Soviet gulag and one of the worst jails in the world by some activists – has also been recorded.
Activists working in Uzbekistan say that people arrested or convicted on charges related to religious offences – almost always falsely - are facing the worst of the torture.
One activist working in Uzbekistan, who asked not to be named, told IPS: "I have spoken to dozens of relatives of people in prison following trumped-up charges of religious extremism who have told me, in great detail, of the torture they have suffered in prison.
"It does seem that people in prison for religious extremism charges make up a disproportionate amount of those suffering torture."
Independent verification of many such reports is almost impossible as the state keeps severe restrictions on independent access to prisoners.
Much information on the abuses suffered by prisoners comes from their relatives speaking to rights groups. They have now revealed a new method of suppression by the state as prisoners are handed down extensions to original sentences that will see them kept in jail until the end of their lives.
One activist told IPS: "What we have heard is that the authorities are unilaterally extending the sentences of religious prisoners. Some who have been in prison for ten years or so whose terms are ending are having them extended, without trial, by authorities and their relatives are saying that the prisoners are being told‚ ‘you will die here in jail‘."
Tashkent has justified its more than decade-long campaign of suppression of religious groups by claiming it is trying to combat the dangers of religious extremism.
More than 90 percent of the country’s 28 million population is estimated to be Muslim. The state controls practice of Islam strictly through a network of state-approved Muslim groups and places of worship. The same is true for the roughly five percent of Uzbeks who are Christian.
Many rights groups say the real reason for control is a fear of the threat a strong Muslim community could pose to the regime.
"The government sees the Muslim community as its biggest potential threat. Muslim clerics and leaders have the potential to mobilise a large number of people. In the past some have drawn crowds of thousands at talks and meetings," said Ilkhamov.
Mass, closed trials of people arrested on religious extremism charges are not uncommon, and one such trial last month saw 19 people sentenced to jail.
Activists also say that the state’s suppression of religious groups as well as restricting other basic freedoms is merely fuelling a growth of non state- approved religious communities, and potentially pushing some to radical groups.
"The lack of any alternative space for an outlet for expression, combined with repression, provides a potentially fertile ground for extremism. People are thrown into prison and labelled as religious extremists and end up sometimes being forced to join those very extremists just for protection," one activist said.
"And prisons are known to have become recruiting grounds for extremist groups," he added.
International and local rights monitors have warned for years that Tashkent’s repressions could drive people into membership of some of the militant religious groups known to be operating in Uzbekistan and the rest of Central Asia.
Local Muslim scholars have warned publicly of such dangers and appealed to Karimov to hold open religious discussions rather than persecute worshippers and take a heavy-handed approach to extremist groups.
Meanwhile, rights campaigners are dismayed at the approach of western governments to the continuing torture of prisoners and rights abuses by Tashkent.
The country’s geopolitical importance has given rise to what one activist described to IPS as Karimov’s power to "bully Western governments into turning a blind eye to the bad parts of his regime."
One senior official at a western rights organisation told IPS: "The torture situation is already atrocious and what is seriously concerning to human rights groups is that the growing close relationship between the U.S., EU and Uzbekistan, driven by its strategic position along supply lines needed for troops in Afghanistan, is overshadowing a long history of human rights abuses which could lead to a further deterioration in human rights."
By Pavol Stracansky
PRAGUE, Jan 11, 2011 (IPS) - Muslims are facing a dark future of repression and torture in Uzbekistan for years to come as the government’s relentless campaign of religious suppression continues.
At least 39 people were tortured to death last year in prisons, according to the Independent Human Rights Defenders Group (IHRDG) in Uzbekistan - a rise from 20 recorded the previous year.
IHRDG says that the torture has become steadily worse in recent years, and activists warn that the real number of those tortured to death is probably much higher as authorities cover up inmates’ abuse by sending bodies back to families in sealed coffins. Relatives of the dead are wary of reporting incidents.
Religious prisoners are also now facing the prospect of being interred for life as unilateral extra-judicial orders are handed down to extend their jail terms indefinitely, rights campaigners say.
The dictatorial regime, led by President Islam Karimov who has ruled the central Asian nation since its independence from the Soviet Union, shows no signs of letting up in its persecution of any religious groups it sees as a potential threat to its power.
Alisher Ilkhamov who works on Uzbek issues for the Open Society Foundation in London told IPS: "The torture of religious prisoners is constant and I don’t see any hope for improvement in the coming years. Muslims will continue to be repressed for a long time into the future, I have no illusions over that."
Karimov’s regime has long been held by the international community as having one of the world’s worst records on human rights.
Brutal state suppression of civil society has been well documented over the last almost two decades. The UN has described use of torture by law enforcement officials, many of whom were schooled under the KGB when the country was part of the Soviet Union, as widespread and systematic.
In at least one case it was found that a prisoner had been boiled to death, and horrific abuse of inmates at the Zhaslyk prison in the remote northwest of the country – described as a post-Soviet gulag and one of the worst jails in the world by some activists – has also been recorded.
Activists working in Uzbekistan say that people arrested or convicted on charges related to religious offences – almost always falsely - are facing the worst of the torture.
One activist working in Uzbekistan, who asked not to be named, told IPS: "I have spoken to dozens of relatives of people in prison following trumped-up charges of religious extremism who have told me, in great detail, of the torture they have suffered in prison.
"It does seem that people in prison for religious extremism charges make up a disproportionate amount of those suffering torture."
Independent verification of many such reports is almost impossible as the state keeps severe restrictions on independent access to prisoners.
Much information on the abuses suffered by prisoners comes from their relatives speaking to rights groups. They have now revealed a new method of suppression by the state as prisoners are handed down extensions to original sentences that will see them kept in jail until the end of their lives.
One activist told IPS: "What we have heard is that the authorities are unilaterally extending the sentences of religious prisoners. Some who have been in prison for ten years or so whose terms are ending are having them extended, without trial, by authorities and their relatives are saying that the prisoners are being told‚ ‘you will die here in jail‘."
Tashkent has justified its more than decade-long campaign of suppression of religious groups by claiming it is trying to combat the dangers of religious extremism.
More than 90 percent of the country’s 28 million population is estimated to be Muslim. The state controls practice of Islam strictly through a network of state-approved Muslim groups and places of worship. The same is true for the roughly five percent of Uzbeks who are Christian.
Many rights groups say the real reason for control is a fear of the threat a strong Muslim community could pose to the regime.
"The government sees the Muslim community as its biggest potential threat. Muslim clerics and leaders have the potential to mobilise a large number of people. In the past some have drawn crowds of thousands at talks and meetings," said Ilkhamov.
Mass, closed trials of people arrested on religious extremism charges are not uncommon, and one such trial last month saw 19 people sentenced to jail.
Activists also say that the state’s suppression of religious groups as well as restricting other basic freedoms is merely fuelling a growth of non state- approved religious communities, and potentially pushing some to radical groups.
"The lack of any alternative space for an outlet for expression, combined with repression, provides a potentially fertile ground for extremism. People are thrown into prison and labelled as religious extremists and end up sometimes being forced to join those very extremists just for protection," one activist said.
"And prisons are known to have become recruiting grounds for extremist groups," he added.
International and local rights monitors have warned for years that Tashkent’s repressions could drive people into membership of some of the militant religious groups known to be operating in Uzbekistan and the rest of Central Asia.
Local Muslim scholars have warned publicly of such dangers and appealed to Karimov to hold open religious discussions rather than persecute worshippers and take a heavy-handed approach to extremist groups.
Meanwhile, rights campaigners are dismayed at the approach of western governments to the continuing torture of prisoners and rights abuses by Tashkent.
The country’s geopolitical importance has given rise to what one activist described to IPS as Karimov’s power to "bully Western governments into turning a blind eye to the bad parts of his regime."
One senior official at a western rights organisation told IPS: "The torture situation is already atrocious and what is seriously concerning to human rights groups is that the growing close relationship between the U.S., EU and Uzbekistan, driven by its strategic position along supply lines needed for troops in Afghanistan, is overshadowing a long history of human rights abuses which could lead to a further deterioration in human rights."
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
The Niqab (Veil) in the Bible – Ban is Unbiblical
We have already learned the head covering is a mandatory requirement for dutiful Christians according to 1 Corinthians 11:6. Paul of Tarsus (the Apostle Paul) was pro-hijab [1]
Some Muslim women add a face veil to the hijab – this is called the niqab. Does the Bible contain any reference or instruction pertaining to the niqab?
There is no explicit teaching within the Bible instructing the wearing of the face veil – this does not mean the Bible militates against the niqab nor does it give Christians carte blanche to harass Muslim ladies whom decide to wear such a covering.
However, the veil does crop up in the Old Testament [2]. From such instances, we can extract valuable insights in so far as the stance Jews and Christians should take on the subject of banning the veil.
The veil in the Bible – Old Testament
The key Biblical reference is the word “tsaiph” in Genesis 24:65 but we shall first look into the veil (tzammah) in Song of Solomon in Song of Solomon 4:1, 4:3 and Isaiah 47:2 as well as the mufflers in Isaiah 3:9
The veil in Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) 4:1 and 4:3
Song of Solomon is a puzzling piece of poetry which scholars differ as to its interpretation; either literal, typical or allegorical [3]
Of course there is a romanticised feel [4] to the verses [5] in question and thus the veil here could have been for ornamental purposes – part of the finery a bride would wear, but Fausset’s Bible dictionary considers the tzammah to be “a mark of modesty and subjection to her lord” [2]
The veil in Isaiah
Isaiah 3:18-19 indicates the veils were used as finery amongst the women of zion and we also realise, through Isaiah 47:2, Babylonian women wore veils too [6].
There is very little we can glean about the veil from Isaiah and Song of Solomon aside from the fact the veil was something that existed prior to the teachings of Muhammad (p) and women did wear such a covering.
The early portion (ch 1-39, Proto-Isaiah) of the Book of Isaiah is attributed to the Prophet Isaiah (p) and is dated ca 700 BCE. Conservative Christian view dictates Solomon is the author of the Song of Solomon and the date of writing is thought to be circa 900 BCE. However, there is a Biblical reference to the veil which precedes the Song of Solomon.
The veil in Genesis 24:64-65
Conservative Christian view dictates Genesis was authored by Moses (p) and dates the writing circa 1400 BCE.
And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel
For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself [Genesis 24:64-65 KJV]
Note: vail is an alternative spelling for veil
Here, Rebekah covers herself with the veil in the presence of her future husband, Isaac. The veil did not stop with Rebekah or her contemporaries. We have already seen the veil was still in use during the times of Solomon and Isaiah.
Hebrew women did generally appear in public without veils [7] though wearing the veil was not unheard of and at times some would appear in public with the full face covered except one eye – nevertheless all the women would observe a covering of the hair, that’s to say, they would wear a head scarf [8].
The union between Rebekah and Isaac (p) is thought to be ca 1800 BCE thus women were wearing the veil some twenty four centuries prior to the wives of Prophet Muhammad (p)
From where did the veil originate?
Smith and Easton in their respective Bible dictionaries tell us in no uncertain terms the veil was not part of a general dress code[9] [10]. Smith cites three “exceptional” cases for the use of the veil; concealment of a woman with loose character, ornamental purposes and by betrothed maidens in the presence of their future husbands.
The big question that begs to be asked is from whom did the custom of veiling oneslef originate from? Where did Rebekah learn of such a teaching? Was it through Abraham (p)? Was it via Rebekah’s father (Bethuel) or was it handed down by her forefathers (linking all the way back to Noah, p)?
It is possible the veil was taught by an Old Testament Prophet or figure, however we do not know for sure. Going by the Genesis account we see tacit approval for the veil by Isaac (p) in so far as he did not object to the veil. To glean and speculate further we can note Rebekah was not specifically instructed to wear the veil – she just wore it without any prompting or fuss – thus the practice of wearing the veil (at least in the presence of a future husband) was already established and could have origins preceding Abraham (p).
Regardless of who introduced such a practice we can all appreciate the veil was not frowned upon and was used to further modesty – even for those of loose character.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic faiths valuing and teaching modesty – thus the veil furthers modesty. No sincere Christian or Jew should be supporting the ban on burqas, hijabs or niqabs.
Typology – is Rebekah’s veil telling us something?
Previously, we saw the Bible was considered to have multiple layers of meaning; Origen certainly subscribed to this view. Could the instance of Rebekah wearing the veil contain a hidden, esoteric meaning for those who scratch well beyond the surface?
In modern times, the veil has become synonymous with Muslim ladies. Muslims subscribe to pure monotheism; a monotheism which Muslims pride as Abrahamic. Is there something to be told here – an indication via the Bible as to which theology is most closely linked to Abraham (p)?
Banning the veil – secularism gone mad
Syria has introduced a ban on the niqab in universities in a move to “protect” its secular identity. Mainland Europe is taking centre stage in its banning of the veil – France and Belgium have already done so.
France even threatens to levy fines [11] on wearers of the niqab – so much for freedom of religion.
Any banning of the niqab is an affront to Western religious freedom and certainly a smack in the face to those who have a regard for the Bible and Biblical characters.
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] Hijab refers to the head covering and a modest style of accompanying dress.
1 Corinthians 11:6 (NIV): If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
[2] The mitpachath (Rth 3:15), tsaiph (Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14; Genesis 38:19), and radial (Song of Solomon 5:7; Isaiah 3:23). Moses' veil was the masveh (Exodus 34:33-35), related to suth (Genesis 49:11). An ample outer robe, drawn over the face when required. Mispachot, the false prophets' magical veils or "kerchiefs" (Ezekiel 13:18; Ezekiel 13:21) which they put over the heads of those consulting them as if to fit them for receiving a response, that they might be rapt in spiritual trance above the world; placed "upon the head of every stature," i.e. upon persons of every age and height, young and old.
Re' aloth, light veils worn by females, called "mufflers" (Isaiah 3:19), from rahal "to tremble," i.e. tremulous, referring to their rustling motion. Tzammah, translated "locks" (Song of Solomon 4:1; Song of Solomon 4:3), the bride's veil, a mark of modesty and subjection to her lord. Isaiah 47:2, "take off thy veil," or "thy locks," nature's covering for a woman (1 Corinthians 11:15), a badge of female degradation. Anciently the veil was only exceptionally used for ornament or by women betrothed in meeting their future husbands, and at weddings (Genesis 24:65).
Ordinarily women among the Jews, Egyptians, and Assyrians, appeared in public with faces exposed (Genesis 12:14; Genesis 24:16; Genesis 24:65; Genesis 20:16; Genesis 29:10; 1 Samuel 1:12). Assyrian and Egyptian sculptures similarly represent women without a veil. It was Mahometanism that introduced the present veiling closely and seclusion of women; the veil on them in worship was the sign of subjection to their husbands (1 Corinthians 11:4-15) {Fausset, Andrew Robert M.A., D.D., "Definition for 'Veil' Fausset's Bible Dictionary". bible-history.com Fausset's; 1878.}
[3] There are three general trends of interpretation2: 1. Literal - belief that it should be interpreted literally line by line in its historical setting. 2. Allegorical - thinking that King Solomon symbolized Jehovah's love for Israel or Jesus Christ's love for the Church, the Bride. These give the book higher spiritual meaning and canonical recognition but fail to accept the historical reality of the events. 3. Typical - thinking that it contains types, e.g. Solomon as the type of Jesus Christ and the Shulamite woman as type of the Church.{Merrill Unger, R. K. Harrison ed. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, Chicago, IL 60610), 1988 http://www.biblenews1.com/docs/shulamit.htm}
[4] The king attempts to win the Shulamite's affection solely by offering flattering words about her anatomy – Michale S Cole’s commentary on Song of Solomon
[5] How beautiful you are, mydarling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead. {NIV Song of Solomon}
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate.{NIV Song of Solomon 4:3}
[6] 18In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the ear-rings and bracelets and veils, { NIV Isaiah 3:18-19 }
2 Take millstones and grind flour; take off your veil. Lift up your skirts, bare your legs, and wade through the streams.{NIV Isaiah 47:2}
[7] Hebrew women generally appeared in public without veils (Gen 12:14; 24:16; 29:10; 1Sa 1:12). - Easton's Bible Dictionary
[8] According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. 76 He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying," It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty." Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". 77 Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78 - Sherif Abdel Azim, Ph.D.- Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
{http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/veil.htm}
[9] Hebrew women generally appeared in public without veils (Gen 12:14; 24:16; 29:10; 1Sa 1:12). [Easton's Bible Dictionary]
[10] With regard to the use of the veil, it is important to observe that it was by no means so general in ancient as in modern times. Much of the scrupulousness in respect of the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran, which forbade women appearing unveiled except in the presence of their nearest relatives. In ancient times the veil was adopted only in exceptional cases, either as an article of ornamental dress (Solomon 4:1; 4:3; 6:7) or by betrothed maidens in the presence of their future husbands, especially at the time of the wedding (Genesis 24:65) or lastly, by women of loose character for purposes of concealment (Genesis 38:14). Among the Jews of the New Testament age it appears to have been customary for the women to cover their heads (not necessarily their faces) when engaged in public worship. {Smith’s Bible Dictionary}
[11] Police in the western city of Nantes said the veil - which showed only her eyes - restricted her vision and could have caused an accident { http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8641070.stm}
Some Muslim women add a face veil to the hijab – this is called the niqab. Does the Bible contain any reference or instruction pertaining to the niqab?
There is no explicit teaching within the Bible instructing the wearing of the face veil – this does not mean the Bible militates against the niqab nor does it give Christians carte blanche to harass Muslim ladies whom decide to wear such a covering.
However, the veil does crop up in the Old Testament [2]. From such instances, we can extract valuable insights in so far as the stance Jews and Christians should take on the subject of banning the veil.
The veil in the Bible – Old Testament
The key Biblical reference is the word “tsaiph” in Genesis 24:65 but we shall first look into the veil (tzammah) in Song of Solomon in Song of Solomon 4:1, 4:3 and Isaiah 47:2 as well as the mufflers in Isaiah 3:9
The veil in Song of Solomon (Song of Songs) 4:1 and 4:3
Song of Solomon is a puzzling piece of poetry which scholars differ as to its interpretation; either literal, typical or allegorical [3]
Of course there is a romanticised feel [4] to the verses [5] in question and thus the veil here could have been for ornamental purposes – part of the finery a bride would wear, but Fausset’s Bible dictionary considers the tzammah to be “a mark of modesty and subjection to her lord” [2]
The veil in Isaiah
Isaiah 3:18-19 indicates the veils were used as finery amongst the women of zion and we also realise, through Isaiah 47:2, Babylonian women wore veils too [6].
There is very little we can glean about the veil from Isaiah and Song of Solomon aside from the fact the veil was something that existed prior to the teachings of Muhammad (p) and women did wear such a covering.
The early portion (ch 1-39, Proto-Isaiah) of the Book of Isaiah is attributed to the Prophet Isaiah (p) and is dated ca 700 BCE. Conservative Christian view dictates Solomon is the author of the Song of Solomon and the date of writing is thought to be circa 900 BCE. However, there is a Biblical reference to the veil which precedes the Song of Solomon.
The veil in Genesis 24:64-65
Conservative Christian view dictates Genesis was authored by Moses (p) and dates the writing circa 1400 BCE.
And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel
For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself [Genesis 24:64-65 KJV]
Note: vail is an alternative spelling for veil
Here, Rebekah covers herself with the veil in the presence of her future husband, Isaac. The veil did not stop with Rebekah or her contemporaries. We have already seen the veil was still in use during the times of Solomon and Isaiah.
Hebrew women did generally appear in public without veils [7] though wearing the veil was not unheard of and at times some would appear in public with the full face covered except one eye – nevertheless all the women would observe a covering of the hair, that’s to say, they would wear a head scarf [8].
The union between Rebekah and Isaac (p) is thought to be ca 1800 BCE thus women were wearing the veil some twenty four centuries prior to the wives of Prophet Muhammad (p)
From where did the veil originate?
Smith and Easton in their respective Bible dictionaries tell us in no uncertain terms the veil was not part of a general dress code[9] [10]. Smith cites three “exceptional” cases for the use of the veil; concealment of a woman with loose character, ornamental purposes and by betrothed maidens in the presence of their future husbands.
The big question that begs to be asked is from whom did the custom of veiling oneslef originate from? Where did Rebekah learn of such a teaching? Was it through Abraham (p)? Was it via Rebekah’s father (Bethuel) or was it handed down by her forefathers (linking all the way back to Noah, p)?
It is possible the veil was taught by an Old Testament Prophet or figure, however we do not know for sure. Going by the Genesis account we see tacit approval for the veil by Isaac (p) in so far as he did not object to the veil. To glean and speculate further we can note Rebekah was not specifically instructed to wear the veil – she just wore it without any prompting or fuss – thus the practice of wearing the veil (at least in the presence of a future husband) was already established and could have origins preceding Abraham (p).
Regardless of who introduced such a practice we can all appreciate the veil was not frowned upon and was used to further modesty – even for those of loose character.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Abrahamic faiths valuing and teaching modesty – thus the veil furthers modesty. No sincere Christian or Jew should be supporting the ban on burqas, hijabs or niqabs.
Typology – is Rebekah’s veil telling us something?
Previously, we saw the Bible was considered to have multiple layers of meaning; Origen certainly subscribed to this view. Could the instance of Rebekah wearing the veil contain a hidden, esoteric meaning for those who scratch well beyond the surface?
In modern times, the veil has become synonymous with Muslim ladies. Muslims subscribe to pure monotheism; a monotheism which Muslims pride as Abrahamic. Is there something to be told here – an indication via the Bible as to which theology is most closely linked to Abraham (p)?
Banning the veil – secularism gone mad
Syria has introduced a ban on the niqab in universities in a move to “protect” its secular identity. Mainland Europe is taking centre stage in its banning of the veil – France and Belgium have already done so.
France even threatens to levy fines [11] on wearers of the niqab – so much for freedom of religion.
Any banning of the niqab is an affront to Western religious freedom and certainly a smack in the face to those who have a regard for the Bible and Biblical characters.
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Footnotes
[1] Hijab refers to the head covering and a modest style of accompanying dress.
1 Corinthians 11:6 (NIV): If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
[2] The mitpachath (Rth 3:15), tsaiph (Genesis 24:65; Genesis 38:14; Genesis 38:19), and radial (Song of Solomon 5:7; Isaiah 3:23). Moses' veil was the masveh (Exodus 34:33-35), related to suth (Genesis 49:11). An ample outer robe, drawn over the face when required. Mispachot, the false prophets' magical veils or "kerchiefs" (Ezekiel 13:18; Ezekiel 13:21) which they put over the heads of those consulting them as if to fit them for receiving a response, that they might be rapt in spiritual trance above the world; placed "upon the head of every stature," i.e. upon persons of every age and height, young and old.
Re' aloth, light veils worn by females, called "mufflers" (Isaiah 3:19), from rahal "to tremble," i.e. tremulous, referring to their rustling motion. Tzammah, translated "locks" (Song of Solomon 4:1; Song of Solomon 4:3), the bride's veil, a mark of modesty and subjection to her lord. Isaiah 47:2, "take off thy veil," or "thy locks," nature's covering for a woman (1 Corinthians 11:15), a badge of female degradation. Anciently the veil was only exceptionally used for ornament or by women betrothed in meeting their future husbands, and at weddings (Genesis 24:65).
Ordinarily women among the Jews, Egyptians, and Assyrians, appeared in public with faces exposed (Genesis 12:14; Genesis 24:16; Genesis 24:65; Genesis 20:16; Genesis 29:10; 1 Samuel 1:12). Assyrian and Egyptian sculptures similarly represent women without a veil. It was Mahometanism that introduced the present veiling closely and seclusion of women; the veil on them in worship was the sign of subjection to their husbands (1 Corinthians 11:4-15) {Fausset, Andrew Robert M.A., D.D., "Definition for 'Veil' Fausset's Bible Dictionary". bible-history.com Fausset's; 1878.}
[3] There are three general trends of interpretation2: 1. Literal - belief that it should be interpreted literally line by line in its historical setting. 2. Allegorical - thinking that King Solomon symbolized Jehovah's love for Israel or Jesus Christ's love for the Church, the Bride. These give the book higher spiritual meaning and canonical recognition but fail to accept the historical reality of the events. 3. Typical - thinking that it contains types, e.g. Solomon as the type of Jesus Christ and the Shulamite woman as type of the Church.{Merrill Unger, R. K. Harrison ed. The New Unger's Bible Dictionary, (Chicago: Moody Press, Chicago, IL 60610), 1988 http://www.biblenews1.com/docs/shulamit.htm}
[4] The king attempts to win the Shulamite's affection solely by offering flattering words about her anatomy – Michale S Cole’s commentary on Song of Solomon
[5] How beautiful you are, mydarling! Oh, how beautiful! Your eyes behind your veil are doves. Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Mount Gilead. {NIV Song of Solomon}
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon; your mouth is lovely. Your temples behind your veil are like the halves of a pomegranate.{NIV Song of Solomon 4:3}
[6] 18In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces, 19 the ear-rings and bracelets and veils, { NIV Isaiah 3:18-19 }
2 Take millstones and grind flour; take off your veil. Lift up your skirts, bare your legs, and wade through the streams.{NIV Isaiah 47:2}
[7] Hebrew women generally appeared in public without veils (Gen 12:14; 24:16; 29:10; 1Sa 1:12). - Easton's Bible Dictionary
[8] According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer (Professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University) in his book, The Jewish woman in Rabbinic literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering which, sometimes, even covered the whole face leaving one eye free. 76 He quotes some famous ancient Rabbis saying," It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered" and "Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen....a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty." Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman since uncovering the woman's hair is considered "nudity". 77 Dr. Brayer also explains that veil of the Jewish woman was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, the veil symbolized a state of distinction and luxury rather than modesty. The veil personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman's inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. 78 - Sherif Abdel Azim, Ph.D.- Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
{http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/veil.htm}
[9] Hebrew women generally appeared in public without veils (Gen 12:14; 24:16; 29:10; 1Sa 1:12). [Easton's Bible Dictionary]
[10] With regard to the use of the veil, it is important to observe that it was by no means so general in ancient as in modern times. Much of the scrupulousness in respect of the use of the veil dates from the promulgation of the Koran, which forbade women appearing unveiled except in the presence of their nearest relatives. In ancient times the veil was adopted only in exceptional cases, either as an article of ornamental dress (Solomon 4:1; 4:3; 6:7) or by betrothed maidens in the presence of their future husbands, especially at the time of the wedding (Genesis 24:65) or lastly, by women of loose character for purposes of concealment (Genesis 38:14). Among the Jews of the New Testament age it appears to have been customary for the women to cover their heads (not necessarily their faces) when engaged in public worship. {Smith’s Bible Dictionary}
[11] Police in the western city of Nantes said the veil - which showed only her eyes - restricted her vision and could have caused an accident { http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8641070.stm}
Monday, 10 January 2011
Islamophobes Dare Not Challenge Hamza Yusuf, Yasir Qadhi, Waleed Basyouni et al
Islamophobes challenged by Muslims – Muslim Scholars are Helping to Eradicate Islamophobia
No Islamophobia = No cash (£$£$) for the Islamophobes
OK, we all know there is a bundle of uncouth and zealous Islamophobes on the internet who literally make it their business (£$£$) to deride Muslims and mudsling at Islam in attempts to frame Islam for 9/11 and other deplorable terrorist actions.
However, the Islamophobe has a perfect opportunity to remove the taint of yellow from themselves and confront ACTUAL Muslim SCHOLARS who are taken as representatives by the Muslim community. If you think 9/11 is a result of Islam then take your tired protestations and befool yourself in front of the learned at the Islamic World International Conference (Georgia International Convention Center). Go on, I dare you; you may actually learn something and even become Muslims.
I very much doubt any Islamophobe will be in attendance. I wonder why…
I wonder what the deluded folk who actually fund (£$£$) the Islamophobes will think when their heroes and heroines decide to eschew a chance to confront a shed load of renowned Sheikhs [i.e. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, Sheikh Waleed Basyouni, Sheikh Zoubir, Sheikh Tidiane Cisse, Sheikh Shuaib Webb, Sheikh Wahaj, Dr Jamal Badawi, Sheikh Zaid Shakir, Sheikh Qasim Ahmed and the list continues] in favour of some unknown, disliked and unauthorised rag-tag almuhajiroun-ignoramuses off the internet.
Try not to embarrass yourselves...
Oh before you embarrass yourselves further by pulling the “these Muslims lie because they are Western scholars” card to safeguard your financial donations ($£$£) please stop and realise the scholars in the Middle East are THEIR teachers and say the SAME thing as evidenced by Sheikh Waleed Basyouni’s teacher (Sheikh Bin Baz). For those who are unaware – i.e. the Islamophobes and their misguided supporters – Sheikh Bin Baz gave a religious edict well BEFORE 9/11 concerning the impermissibility of such terrorism. Enough said.
Ali Ataie Amuses us with a "Christian" Islamophobe
People, PLEASE stop giving internet Islamophobes cash. They are laughing all the way to the bank (£$£$)whilst adorning their yellow outfits. Please employ some logic too; would you go to some charlatan off the internet to gain legal or medical advice? Certainly not – you would appeal to EXPERST in the respective fields NOT to some money hungry unlearned charlatan, hence you SHOULD employ the SAME logic when dealing with Islam – CONSULT THE SCHOLARS (it’s free of charge)!!!
Some details of the event are appended in the comment section.
Related:
Sheikh Waleed Basyouni condemns terrorism
IslamDunkTV condemns attacks on Christians and Muslims stand by Christians
A lorry load of Islamic EXPERTS (Including Dr Timothy Winter) condemn terrorism
Convert to Islam today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
TAGS: Pam Gellar, Atlas Shrugs, Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, Zacharia anaini, extremists, terry jones, burn quran day, draw Muhammad day, geert wilders, exposing Islamophobia, Jihad Exposed, abnsat.com, answeringmuslims, christianprince, james white, alpha and omega ministries, sam Shamoun, debates, 9/11 commission, deenshow, Shabir ally, exmuslims, edl, bnp, tea party, pat Condell, atheism, Christianity, Debbie schlussel, Negeen mayel, david wood, acts 17 apologetics, loonwatch, tawfiq hamid, wafa sultan, reformists, CAIRTV, Foxnews, glen beck, msnbc, abc news, muslims in the news, latest, terrorism, alqaeda, Nabeel Qureshi, tony costa, ali sina, almuhajiroun, arabs, iran, israeil, Zionism, Egypt, war, jesse quinn Harrison, txhalabi, bassim gorial,shirley phelps, fred phelps,
No Islamophobia = No cash (£$£$) for the Islamophobes
OK, we all know there is a bundle of uncouth and zealous Islamophobes on the internet who literally make it their business (£$£$) to deride Muslims and mudsling at Islam in attempts to frame Islam for 9/11 and other deplorable terrorist actions.
 |
| Click to enlarge |
Have you ever noticed these Islamophobes champion themselves as folk who have a better grasp of Islam than the Muslim scholars (Muslim scholars have denounced terrorism as unislamic by the tons)? Have you ever noticed the Islamophobes wheel out the same unsupported and uncared for extremist ignoramuses as “representatives” of Islam – such as Anjem Choudary, Omar Bakri Mohammad etc...? Why do our Islamophobic opponents avoid confronting the experts on Islam?
The answer is simple; the Islamophobe’s disingenuous charade ends when up against the learned. You see, the Islamophobe is flimsy and a paper champion who operates his/her dirty game in the den of ignorance and thus runs at the sight of a true Muslim scholar.
Islamophobes, please roll up with your donation-paid-for-cameras..
However, the Islamophobe has a perfect opportunity to remove the taint of yellow from themselves and confront ACTUAL Muslim SCHOLARS who are taken as representatives by the Muslim community. If you think 9/11 is a result of Islam then take your tired protestations and befool yourself in front of the learned at the Islamic World International Conference (Georgia International Convention Center). Go on, I dare you; you may actually learn something and even become Muslims.
Oh before you embarrass yourselves further by pulling the “these Muslims lie because they are Western scholars” card to safeguard your financial donations ($£$£) please stop and realise the scholars in the Middle East are THEIR teachers and say the SAME thing as evidenced by Sheikh Waleed Basyouni’s teacher (Sheikh Bin Baz). For those who are unaware – i.e. the Islamophobes and their misguided supporters – Sheikh Bin Baz gave a religious edict well BEFORE 9/11 concerning the impermissibility of such terrorism. Enough said.
Ali Ataie Amuses us with a "Christian" Islamophobe
People, PLEASE stop giving internet Islamophobes cash. They are laughing all the way to the bank (£$£$)whilst adorning their yellow outfits. Please employ some logic too; would you go to some charlatan off the internet to gain legal or medical advice? Certainly not – you would appeal to EXPERST in the respective fields NOT to some money hungry unlearned charlatan, hence you SHOULD employ the SAME logic when dealing with Islam – CONSULT THE SCHOLARS (it’s free of charge)!!!
Some details of the event are appended in the comment section.
Related:
Sheikh Waleed Basyouni condemns terrorism
IslamDunkTV condemns attacks on Christians and Muslims stand by Christians
A lorry load of Islamic EXPERTS (Including Dr Timothy Winter) condemn terrorism
Convert to Islam today
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
TAGS: Pam Gellar, Atlas Shrugs, Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Walid Shoebat, Kamal Saleem, Zacharia anaini, extremists, terry jones, burn quran day, draw Muhammad day, geert wilders, exposing Islamophobia, Jihad Exposed, abnsat.com, answeringmuslims, christianprince, james white, alpha and omega ministries, sam Shamoun, debates, 9/11 commission, deenshow, Shabir ally, exmuslims, edl, bnp, tea party, pat Condell, atheism, Christianity, Debbie schlussel, Negeen mayel, david wood, acts 17 apologetics, loonwatch, tawfiq hamid, wafa sultan, reformists, CAIRTV, Foxnews, glen beck, msnbc, abc news, muslims in the news, latest, terrorism, alqaeda, Nabeel Qureshi, tony costa, ali sina, almuhajiroun, arabs, iran, israeil, Zionism, Egypt, war, jesse quinn Harrison, txhalabi, bassim gorial,shirley phelps, fred phelps,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)