Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

Sam Shamoun vs Shabir Ally

Read Full Post »

To Allah, there are no animals viler than those who do not believe and remain unbelievers” (Surah 8:55).

Here is the fate of those who fight Allah and his messenger: you will put them to death or you will make them suffer the torture of the cross; you will cut their hands and their feet alternately. They will be driven from the country” (Surah 5:33)

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Surah 9:5)

So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds.” (Surah 47:4)

Do not display cowardice, and do not call the infidels to peace when you are superior to them” (Surah 47:35).

Those who reject (Truth) among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will abide in hell-fire, they are the worst of creatures.” (Surah 98:6)

This is the question that the West needs to understand, what part of kill don’t they not understand?” ~ Walid Shoebat

This is not an allegorical kill, but a literal kill.” ~ Walid Shoebat

Here is another video of an Egyptian Imam that sings of apes, pigs and the annihilation of Jews on Judgment Day:

Song of Death

Hebrews 13:3,

Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body” (NASB).

Read Full Post »

In my first post, titled Muslim Writers’ Attack Against Traditional Authorship of the Gospels: Part 1, I briefly spoke about the “Scripture references that supports the orthodox understanding of the Gospels” and a snippet of the “apologetical methods for traditional authorship of the Gospels.”  I won’t get into the details of the apologetical methods, because SLIMJIM already did a great job in one of his earlier posts, titled, WITNESSING TO MUSLIMS: THE QURANIC VIEW OF THE BIBLE.  Therefore, there is probably no need to repeat it at this time.  Please refer back to the link above in terms of how to witness to Muslims.   With that said, let us now journey into the arguments for traditional authorship of Matthew and Mark.  I believe that the defense of the traditional authorship of the Gospels is fundamental because some Muslim apologists will play the trump card strategy by questioning who wrote the Gospels in order to justify their reasoning that Christianity has no evidence for itself.  However, there is evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the Gospel writers.  It is my prayer that this post concerning the internal and external arguments for the orthodox understanding of the Gospels,  will embolden you more when you are witnessing to a Muslim who is in dire need of Christ for salvation.  May we never doubt who wrote the Gospels.  To do so, will open the floodgates of rationalism.  And to do so would be a self-defeater for the Muslims.  If Muslim apologists play that game, then one could do the same thing with other religious books such as the Qur’an.  Therefore,  God’s Word is the starting point for the basis of reality and truth.

Arguments for Traditional Authorship of Matthew 

Before I get into the internal arguments for the traditional authorship of Matthew, I will first cover the external arguments.  Critics such as Muslims and other groups will often say that the Gospels have no proof of evidence unless it could be proven externally outside of Scripture.  Opponents usually request for evidence externally because they have a low view on Scripture.  In their view, Scripture is not the authority, but man’s rationalism is.  As a result, they will propose that different people wrote the Gospels.  What they have done is that they have exalted themselves above God’s holy Words.

Although I believe internal evidence is enough because God is the starting point for the basis of reality and truth, I will go ahead provide external evidence for the sake of interest.

In regards to the internal evidence, I will provide quotes from Papias who was a bishop of Hierapolis in the Phrygian region of the province of Asia, which was a city that was about twenty miles west of Colossae and six miles east of Laodicea.[1]  Not much detail is gathered from Papias’ life beyond the description of Irenaeus who said that he was “one of the ancients” who was in close contact with John and the eyewitnesses to Christ’s ministry.[2]  Unfortunately, many of Papias’ writings are not extant anymore and only a couple of fragments are preserved.  But by God’s grace, some fathers and especially Eusebius, who is considered the “father of church history,” was able to preserve some of Papias’ writings.[3]  A series of five treatises, entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, Eusebius was able to bring in some invaluable information from the first living eye-witnesses account who namely are John and other original disciples of Jesus such as Ariston, when it came to dicephering what the apostles had said or done[4]  In regards to Papias, it is safe to say that what Papias said are credible resources because they were based off of first-eyewitnesses account; and if Papias wrote approximately A.D. 95-110, then the information he provides, reaches back to the first century, which is a very invaluable resource.[5]

In Papias’ brief account of Matthew’s authorship in his Exposition, here is what he says about Matthew,

Matthew collected (synetaxato) the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektō), and each interpreted (hermēneusen) them as best he could.”[6]

For those who think that Papias was careless or not a discerning church father, I think it would be wise to see the astuteness of his own words as collected by Eusebius’ The History of the Church book, which says,

But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and springing from the truth itself.  If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders–what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from Eusebius the living and abiding voice.”[7]

Clearly in this quote, there are some very significant points we can draw from.  The first major point you will notice is that Papias would rather get information from the apostles because the apostles were first-eyewitnesses of Christ.[8]  Second point is that he did not desire to get information from secondhand-eyewitnesses because their information about Christ may be unreliable.  If their information is unreliable then they are unreliable.  Reliable information would be from the apostles and the disciples that were with Christ when He was on earth.  Thirdly, what we see about Papias’ discernment is that even if he received information about Christ from the apostles or from the disciples like Ariston, Papias would still question the information like the Bereans did in the Book of Acts.

Before getting into a detail discussion of the internal evidence, it will be beneficial to cover the issue of Matthew’s name in the Gospel.[9]  The issue is not really about the name of Matthew, but the issue is in regards to the way the name is used.  What is precipitating the issue is Matthew’s name being used in the third person.  Matthew 9:9 confirms this.  Matthew 9:9 says,

As Jesus went on from there, He saw a man called Matthew, sitting in the tax collector’s booth; and He said to him, ‘Follow Me!’ And he got up and followed Him.”

Opponents think that it is out of place for Matthew to refer to himself in the third person.

However, what these opponents forget is that many examples of ancient works indicate that authors of their own works, use their own names in the third person.[10]  Some examples of ancient works that use their names in the third person are Thucydides’ The Peloponesian War (B.C. 460-395), the Greek historian and philosopher Xenophon’s (B.C. 430-354) work called Anabasis, Julius Caesar’s (B.C. 100-40) works called Gallic War and Civil War.[11]  Clearly, the external evidence provides that an author using their name in the third person is nothing new and gives no justification to negate traditional authorship of the Gospel.

As for the internal evidence that supports the traditional authorship of Matthew, I believe that covering the names, financial transaction terminology, the use of coins in Matthew’s time, and the upholding of the tax rules by Jesus, are significant evidences for supporting traditional authorship.

What is significant about the names in the Book of Matthew is the use of two names referring to Matthew himself.  As stated earlier, the author of the Gospel of Matthew is called Matthew and Levi (Matthew 9:9).  On another note, the Apostle Paul, who is the author of many of the New Testament writings is referred not only as Paul, but Saul (Acts 11:30; 12:25; 13:7).  As for Apostle Peter, he is also called Simon (Luke 7:43; Acts 15:14).  The use of Matthew, Paul, and Peter were the names given when these three became disciples.  Many will consider their new names as a symbol of their new life.

A second reason why traditional authorship of Matthew is viable is the use of passages that have to do with financial transactions (17:24-27; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 26:15; 27:3-10; 28:11-15).[12]  Another point to consider are the coin terminologies used.  For example in Matthew 22:19, Jesus implements this by saying,

’Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.’ And they brought Him a denarius.” 

As you can see, Jesus uses the word δηνάριον (dēnárion) and the word νόμισμα (nomisma; state coin).  The nuance you see in this verse is the term “state coin.”  The term νόμισμα (state coin) is the only term used in Matthew and nowhere else in the Gospels, but a “denarius” is used in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 20:24) and John (John 6:7).  On another note, the term “νόμισμα” is a more precise term, which is why it is the only term used in the New Testament.[13]

The fourth point to consider that gives credence to Matthew being the sole author of the Gospel of Matthew is Jesus’ upholding of the tax laws when the tax collectors wanted to collect tax from Peter and Jesus (Matthew 17:24-27).  Matthew would not oppose the tax laws since he was a tax collector himself.[14]  When analyzing Matthew’s (the tax-collector) account of the coins, the use of financial terminology, and Jesus upholding of the law, demonstrates that the elements used, resonates the idea of Matthew as the true author.

Arguments for Traditional Authorship of Mark

As for the external evidence regarding Mark’s authorship, here is what Papias says concerning Mark’s writing,

This also the presbyter said: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.  These things are related by Papias concerning Mark.”[15]

First thing we see is that Papias affirms the authorship of Mark through the presbyter that is based on Peter’s eyewitness testimony.  As stated earlier, Papias was careful whom he got his information from.  He got it from the elders and presbyters that could be traced back to the apostles.[16]  Secondly, Papias indicates that Mark was the interpreter of Peter.  Thirdly, Papias indicates that Mark was a man who was careful not to omit anything that came from Peter’s eyewitness testimony.

As for the internal evidence, there are many significant points that must be considered that authenticates Mark as being the author of his Gospel.  Mark (Acts 15:39; Colossians 4:10; 1 Timothy 4:11) who is also called John Mark, can be found in these following passages (Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37).

Besides Mark also being known as John Mark, Philemon 1:24 points out that Mark was in Rome; and we know that Peter was in Rome as well in the latter part of his life.[17]  For more evidence regarding Mark being an acquaintance of Peter, please see Acts 12:11-17 and 1 Peter 5:13.  1 Peter 5:13 for example, says this about Peter’s close relationship to Mark,

She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings, and so does my son, Mark.” 

The word son is familial term used to denote the idea of family and closeness to one another.  Hence, Mark was not a stranger to Peter.

Since John Mark was known be around Apostle Peter, it is safe to say that Mark was familiar with the language that was implemented in Rome, which was Latin.  Because Latin was the dominant language used, you will find Mark using Latinisms—which are Latin terms contained in a Greek work.[18]  Some examples would be the use of the courtyard and praetorium in Mark 15:16 and the terms legion and denarius in Mark 5:9 and Mark 6:37.[19]

Please stay tune for the next installment as I will cover arguments for the traditional authorship of Luke and Acts.  Although Acts does not belong in the Gospels, I think it is important to cover it because Acts is associated with Luke since he wrote not just the Gospel of Luke, but the book of Acts too.

Until then, let us remember those who are being persecuted for glory of Christ Jesus.  Hebrews 13:3,

Remember the prisoners, as though in prison with them, and those who are ill-treated, since you yourselves also are in the body” (NASB).

[1] Robert L. Thomas and David F. Farnell, “The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship” (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 39.

[2] Ibid, 39.

[3] Ibid, 39.

[4] Ibid, 39.

[5] Ibid, 39.

[6] Ibid, 39.

[7] Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 68). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

[8] Keith Thompson, “Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments For Traditional Authorship,” Answering Islam: A Christian-Muslim Dialog, 3.

[9] Ibid, 2.

[10] Ibid, 2.

[11] Ibid, 2.

[12] Ibid, 2.

[13] Ibid, 2.

[14] Ibid, 2.

[15] Eusebius, The History of the Church, III.39.15 (p. 69). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

[16] Keith Thompson, “Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments For Traditional Authorship,” Answering Islam: A Christian-Muslim Dialog, 6.

[17] Ibid, 4.

[18] Ibid, 4

[19] Ibid, 5.

Read Full Post »

Some Muslim writers assert that no one really knows if Matthew, Luke, Mark and John are the actual authors of the Gospels.  They claim that the traditional understanding or the orthodox understanding is not maintainable.  Because it is not maintainable, these writers will often cite liberal scholars, who are notoriously known to implement the higher-critical methodology to the Bible.[1]  To make matters worse, in order to justify their reasoning against traditional authorship of the Gospels, some Muslim apologists will go so far by using quotes from conservative scholars.[2]  For example, whenever a conservative scholar is seen quoting that  Matthew, Luke, etc. does not identify themselves as the author clearly, the Muslim apologist will use that snippet of information as a weapon against orthodoxy, while ignoring the positive arguments (internal and external) from the conservative scholar who argues in favor of traditional authorship.[3]

Before we get into the details concerning arguments against traditional authorship, I think it would be beneficial to first go through some Scriptures and what the early church fathers say regarding traditional authorship of the Gospels.  It is my prayer that Muslim apologists or even rationalists who implement the higher-critical methodology will see that God authorized Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to write the Gospels.  Let us now move in to some Scripture references that supports traditional authorship.

Scripture References for Traditional Authorship

The traditional authorship reveals that Matthew, who is a tax collector that went by the name of Levi and also Matthew, is the author of the Gospel of Matthew.  The following passages that speak of Matthew or Levi are: Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27-29; Matthew 9:9 and 12:3.  This disciple who is described as a tax-collector appears in all the lists of the twelve apostles (Matthew appears in all the lists of the twelve apostles (Mt. 10:3; Mk. 3:18; Lk. 6:15; Acts 1:13).[4] As an apostle, Matthew witnessed Christ and His resurrection.

Traditional authorship of the Gospel, reveals Mark as the interpreter/secretary and companion of Peter.[5]  He could be found in passages such as Acts 12:12, 25, and 15:37.

The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts reveals that Luke the physician and the companion of Paul is the author.  Luke was clearly one of the companions of Paul who sent his greetings in Paul’s letter to Colossae  (Col. 4:14).[6]  He could also be found in the following passages such as Philemon 1:24.

The fourth Gospel, which is the Gospel of John, reveals that John the son of Zebedee who was one of the twelve disciples, who can be found in passages such as Matthew 4:21; 17:1; Mark 3:17; 9:2; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13; and Galatians 2:9.[7]  John was not only an apostle and the only one who was not martyred, but He, including James and Simon Peter—the privileged three, were able to witness the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:37), the glorious transfiguration (Mark 9:2); and they were there with Christ at the garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:33). According to the New Bible Dictionary, although the name John was not mentioned in the fourth Gospel, he is mentioned as the son of Zebedee in John 21:2 and he is clearly the disciple whom Jesus loved, and the one whom lay close to the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper as stated in John 13:23.[8]

Hence it is clear, that I will be arguing for the traditional authorship of the Gospels—by affirming that the Gospels were written by disciples in the case of Matthew and John; and based on the testimony of the disciples by those who knew them – in the case of Mark and Luke.[9]  Before I cover Matthew, I think it is important to first address the apologetical methods concerning the traditional authorship of the Gospels so that Christians will have a good understanding concerning the opponents they face.

Apologetical Methods for Traditional Authorship of the Gospels

When it comes to arguments surrounding the traditional or biblical authorship of the Gospels, I think that it is vital to presuppose the truth of Christianity as the proper starting point for discussing the traditional authorship of the Gospels.[10]  When debating a depraved person who does not respond to divine stimuli, but the stimuli of rationalism, the Christian must assume the truth of the Bible and the Christian worldview regarding the traditional authorship of the Gospels; and must not concede ground to neutral assumptions with a unregenerate person.[11]  Here is what Apostle Paul says about the unregenerate person in 1 Corinthians 2:14,

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”[12]

If Apostle Paul’s writings were inspired in 1 Corinthians concerning the condition of the unregenerate regarding the notion of the spiritual topics, how much more careful should we be when dealing with the unbeliever.

As Christians, we must be committed to the lordship of Christ as stated in Rom 10:9 and 1 Cor 12:3.[13]  For the purpose of this context, that means being committed to the Lordship of Christ in all areas of life and reality because there are no areas in this universe that should be interpreted outside the knowledge of God’s Word and sovereignty.[14]

In regards to commitment to and the use of the Word of God as our ultimate authority, here is what Pastor Greg Bahnsen said,

God’s word has been seen to be foundational to all knowledge. It has absolute epistemic authority and it is the necessary presupposition of all knowledge which man possesses.”[15]

If one does not embrace the biblical truths of Christianity as Pastor Bahnsen had stated, then one will open up the floodgates for “reason” to be placed on neutral ground.  If this is allowed, then epistemic bias will creep into the debate concerning traditional authorship of the Gospels; and the unbeliever will use his polluted epistemic authority to decide whether he or she should believe in the God of the Bible who authenticated the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s Gospels.[16]  However, this epistemic authority is never granted to the unbeliever.[17]  If the Christian does not presuppose truth in the area traditional authorship of the Gospels, then I believe what Eta Linnemann said should be taken to heart.  Here is what she says,

The concept of Holy Scripture is relativized so that the Bible’s is nothing more than a religious writing like all other religious writings.  Since other religions have their holy scriptures, one cannot assume that the Bible is somehow unique and superior to them.  This is why it gets treated like any other book.  There comes to be no distinction between how the Bible is regarded and how the Odyssey is read, even though it is clear enough upon careful study that there are differences between them.”[18]

I really believe what Eta Linneman says, hits the nail on the head.  By implication, it hits the nail on the head because if the Bible is not superior to other religions or humanistic, or uninspired books like the Qur’an, then the Bible will be treated just like any other book and everything will be relativized.  If that is the case, then no one has the epistemic fiat to dictate who is the real author of the Gospels and other books of the Bible.  There needs to be a standard in order to account for truth and reality when it comes to traditional authorship.  Otherwise, there will circular reasoning without ever coming to the truth.  As a result, as Christians, we must presuppose that the Bible accounts for truth and reality in terms of traditional authorship and humans must abide by them.  We must not concede ground to the Muslim apologists.  We have an inspired book – they do not!

Stay tune for the next installment.  I will be covering arguments for traditional authorship of Matthew.

[1] Keith Thompson, “Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments For Traditional Authorship,” Answering Islam: A Christian-Muslim Dialog, http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/gospel_authorship.html (accessed May 31, 2012), 1

[2] Ibid, 1.

[3] Ibid, 1.

[4] D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 739.

[5] Keith Thompson, “Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments For Traditional Authorship,” Answering Islam: A Christian-Muslim Dialog, http://answering-islam.org/authors/thompson/gospel_authorship.html (accessed May 31, 2012), 1.

[6] D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 703.

[7] Keith Thompson, “Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments For Traditional Authorship,” Answering Islam: A Christian-Muslim Dialog, 1.

[8] D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 592.

[9] Keith Thompson, “Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments For Traditional Authorship,” Answering Islam: A Christian-Muslim Dialog, 2.

[10] Michael Vlach, “Apologetic Systems,” (unpublished syllabus, The Master’s Seminary, 2011), 26.

[11] Michael Vlach,”What is Presuppositional Apologetics,” (unpublished syllabus, The Master’s Seminary, 2011), 30.

[12] All Scripture is quoted from the New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update.

[13] Michael Vlach, “What is Presuppositional Apologetics,” (unpublished syllabus, The Master’s Seminary, 2011), 32.

[14] Ibid, 32.

[15] Ibid, 32.

[16] Ibid, 32.

[17] Ibid, 32.

[18] Eta Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the Bible Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical: Methodology or Ideology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001), 84-85.


Read Full Post »

What happens to Muslims who wish to embrace another religion?

Those who turn their back on Islam are to be executed.  This is confirmed by the words and deeds of Muhammad.

The Quran:

Qur’an (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them”

Qur’an (9:11-12) – “But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief – Lo! they have no binding oaths – in order that they may desist.”

The Hadith:

Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “  Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.

Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Bukhari (89:271) – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”


Further reading

Read Full Post »

Re-posting it from December 1st 2006.

A group of Indonesian men ambushed four girls (men vs girls) as they walked to their Christian school. One of the three survived with serious wounds. The school had been burned down during a previous round of sectarian conflict and later rebuilt.

The police said the heads of the three victims were discovered by local residents some distance from the bodies. The surviving student told the police that there had been six assailants wearing masks and black shirts. The victims were identified as Yarni Sambue (15) Interesia Morangke (16) and Alfita Paulina (19).

The survivor has been identified as Noviana Malewa, who is currently in intensive care at a nearby hospital. The bodies of the girls were left at the site of the attack near a cocoa plantation. The heads were found at separate locations two hours later by residents. One of the heads was found near a church.

They have found the men responsible for the beheadings. Three Muslim men have been charged in the beheadings of three girls in an Indonesian province filled with sectarian tension. More news here, here and here.

Update: The “three Christian high school girls who were beheaded” was a Ramadan “trophy” by Indonesian militants who conceived the idea after a visit to Philippines jihadists, a court heard yesterday.

The girl’s severed heads were dumped in plastic bags in their village in Indonesia’s strife-torn Central Sulawesi province, along with a handwritten note threatening more of such attacks.

The note read: Wanted: 100 more Christian heads, teenaged or adult, male or female…

Read Full Post »

This is honor killing in Islam. She was a participant in a beauty pageant and later stoned to death by a few Muslims for dishonoring Islam. More on the news.

Why is it called “Religion of Peace?”

Read Full Post »

CAUTION: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC video of beheaded children. But people need to see the evil that confronts the world.


Read Full Post »

Before I comment on Libya, I want to make the observation that American laws are strict against those who support, aid and abet Radical Islam and terrorism.  I was reminded of this today when I read the news about Kamal Said Hassan recent request to be released pending sentencing. He was a Somali man who was arrested in 2008 for his connection with being in a Radical Islamic violent training camps and following orders with an Islamic insurgency group that want to bring an Islamic regime to Somalia after his return to America.  Obviously, America means business when it comes to those who support terror.

Would Obama, America’s own president be willing to aid and support Islamic jihad?  Who is the US supporting in Libya?

It’s too simple to say that the Libyan government is killing civilians (no doubt civilians are getting killed).  There’s also rebels who are fighting against him.

What I find saddening in Western media is the fact that the headlines are more about what our planes and bombs are doing instead of asking an important question of why they are bombing and fighting in the first place: Who are the insurgents we are protecting with our bombs and planes?

A good question.  Who are the Libyan rebels?

The London Telegraph has reported on March 25th, 2011 with the following headline, “Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have Al Qaeda link.”

You can read it for yourself in full by clicking HERE

However, even that headline is not totally accurate as it paints the picture of rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi just having to happen to have a few figthers here and there who have links to Al Qaeda.

When one read the entire newspiece about Al-Hasidi (some journalists call him Al-Hasadi instead), one will discover that he has fought in Afghanistan and was captured in Pakistan in 2002.  What a thought; the headline shouldn’t be some Al Qaeda linked insurgents are in Al-Hasadi’s rebel forces, but that the leader himself was involved with pro-Al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan!

It is ironic to think that in one part of the world (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq) the United States drop bombs on any who have miniscule ties to Al Qaeda, while under this current administration with President Obama, in another part of the world (Libya) we drop bombs on the enemies of those with ties to Al Qaeda instead. Remember that the Al-Qaeda linked insurgents based around the Libyan town of Derna has supplied suicide bombers in Iraq and figthers for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the past.

The U.S. have had a history within the intelligence and covert operations community of assuming that men whom we support to overthrow another regime will be our “agents” our “lackeys” but if the names like Ho-Chi-Minh, Saddam Hussein don’t ring in a bell in terms of lesson from history, we need to realize that these men who are depraved enough to murder many innocent lives and risk their own mortality is probably too depraved and vicious to be a listening “agent” of America’s agenda–whatever that agenda is.  Sadly in the current crisis with Libya, the West has yet to figure what their objective is.

Read Full Post »

Reported by CNN and ANSA that an 8 year old girl married a 47 year old man.

Is this because Muhammad provided an example for all Muslims after him when he married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine?

(ANSAmed) – RIYADH, SEPTEMBER 10 – A Saudi judge asked to decide on the request for divorce between an eight-year-old girl and a man of 50 has taken his time until December 20 to rule on the case, a lawyer of the family said. The hearing on the divorce request, filed by the mother of the girl, was held yesterday in the town of Unaizah, 420 kilometres north of Riyadh. Lawyer Abdallah Jtili said that in the hearing the husband reiterated he did not agree with the breaking up of the marriage. “The judge said he wanted to reflect further on the matter and give time to the parties to reach a mutual agreement before ruling on the case,” the lawyer said. The marriage of the girl, who does not know yet that she has been given away as bride, was organised by the father. Some relatives of the child reported the case in August to a Saudi human rights association asking it to intervene in order to annul the marriage. Cases of girls given as brides to men are denounced from time to time in Saudi Arabia, an ultra-conservative kingdom which rigidly applies the fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam which allows polygamy. In neighbouring Yemen an eight-year-old girl obtained in April divorce after having denounced in the court her father who had forced her to marry a 28-year-old man. (ANSAmed).

Another 8 year old girl is also facing similar case in Yemen.

Read Full Post »

aasiya-hassanOrchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

Muzzammil Hassan, right, founder of Bridges TV, is charged with murder in the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, left, in Orchard Park.

Btw, Muzzammil Hassan is the founder of Bridges TV. The purpose of Bridges TV is to potray Muslims and Islam in a positive light after 9/11. I guess they are not reporting this.

Daniel Pipes gives a good commentary on the whole event.

Here’s a link to all the commentaries on Quranic and Hadith verses on murdering, violence and terrorism.

Books on Islam,

islam-1 islam-21 islam-3

Read Full Post »

Mumbai is attacked (still being attacked) by Islamic group.

mumbai mumbai-4


Little known Islamic group claimed the bombing.

Americans and British targeted by Islamic group.

Foreigners the target of Islamic group.

Intelligence Chiefs expecting Islamic group attacks.

Terror attacks by Islamic group.

Read Full Post »

On October 30, 2008, the United Nations condemned the stoning to death of Aisha Duhulowa, a 13-year-old girl who had been gang-raped and then sentenced to death by a Sharia court for fornication (Zina). She was screaming and begging for mercy, but when some family members attempted to intervene, shots were fired by the Islamic militia and a baby was killed.

Local Sharia courts in Bangladesh regularly punish raped minor girls and women by flogging and beating them with shoes.[1] Similar cases of punishing raped women are Mina v. the State, Bibi v. the State and Bahadur v. the State.[2] Sharia courts in Pakistan have punished thousands of raped women by long term imprisonment.[3]

You might think that such horrific barbarity cannot be the real Sharia law; that it is a misapplication of the law by ignorant clergy. Sadly, neither is true.

There is a traceable dynamic in Sharia Law that is bound to lead to this barbarity. And unless we abandon these laws we will never be able to emerge from this barbarity. It was a blunder that Muslim jurists included rape in the Hudood section of Sharia Law that deals with murder, bodily harm, apostasy, drinking, defamation, theft, adultery and highway robbery. But anyone who tried to change these laws ended up banging their heads against the wall.  Mawdudi, the founding father of modern Political Islam, claims that even if all the world’s Muslims together wanted to make the slightest change in these laws, they would not be allowed to do so.[4]

Read further.

Read Full Post »

“[Y]oung Arab men should sexually harass Israeli girls wherever they may be and using any possible method, as a new means in the resistance against Israel” — and this from a female lawyer no less.”Egyptian Lawyer Nagla Al-Imam Suggests Arab Men Should Sexually Harass Israeli Women and Declares: Leave the Land So We Won’t Rape You,” from MEMRI, originally airing October 31 (thanks to Dionysios):

Following are excerpts from an interview with Egyptian lawyer Nagla Al-Imam, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on October 31, 2008.Interviewer: Egyptian lawyer Nagla Al-Imam has proposed that young Arab men should sexually harass Israeli girls wherever they may be and using any possible method, as a new means in the resistance against Israel.


Interviewer: We have with us the lawyer Nagla Al-Imam from Cairo. Welcome. What is the purpose of this proposal of yours?

Nagla Al-Imam: This is a form of resistance. In my opinion, they are fair game for all Arabs, and there is nothing wrong with…

Interviewer: On what grounds?

Nagla Al-Imam: First of all, they violate our rights, and they “rape” the land. Few things are as grave as the rape of land. In my view, this is a new form of resistance.

Interviewer: As a lawyer, don’t you think this might expose Arab youth to punishment for violating laws against sexual harassment?

Nagla Al-Imam: Most Arab countries… With the exception of three or four Arab countries, which I don’t think allow Israeli women to enter anyway, most Arab countries do not have sexual harassment laws. Therefore, if [Arab women] are fair game for Arab men, there is nothing wrong with Israeli women being fair game as well.

Interviewer: Does this also include rape?

Nagla Al-Imam: No. Sexual harassment… In my view, the [Israeli women] do not have any right to respond. The resistance fighters would not initiate such a thing, because their moral values are much loftier than that. However if such a thing did happen to them, the [Israeli women] have no right to make any demands, because this would put us on equal terms – leave the land so we won’t rape you. These two things are equal.


I don’t want young Arab men to be interrogated. I want these Zionist girls with Israeli citizenship to be expelled from our Arab countries. This is a form of resistance, and a way of rejecting their presence.

From FrontPage.


(HT: Elya & Ellie)

Read Full Post »

Brigitte Gabriel is the founder of ACT for America and American Congress for Truth warn audiences about hate teaching literature being used in Muslim mosques in America.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »