Qur'an 5:116—And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
NAIROBI, Kenya, October 27 (Compass Direct News) – Among at least 24 aid workers killed in Somalia this year was one who was beheaded last month specifically for converting from Islam to Christianity, among other charges, according to an eyewitness.
Muslim extremists from the al Shabab group fighting the transitional government on Sept. 23 sliced the head off of Mansuur Mohammed, 25, a World Food Program (WFP) worker, before horrified onlookers of Manyafulka village, 10 kilometers (six miles) from Baidoa. READ MORE
Hanged for being a Christian in Iran
Eighteen years ago, Rashin Soodmand's father was hanged in Iran for converting to Christianity. Now her brother is in a Mashad jail, and expects to be executed under new religious laws brought in this summer. Alasdair Palmer reports.
A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against. READ MORE
Sahih al-Bukhari 6878—Narrated Abdullah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and that I am the Messenger of Allah, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) Life for life; (2) a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and (3) the one who turns renegade from Islam (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims.
Sahih al-Bukhari 6921—Ibn Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, “A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed.”
Sahih al-Bukhari 6922—Allah’s Messenger [said], “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
Kinana b. al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, 'Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?' he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, 'Torture him until you extract what he has,' so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he stuck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 515)
Judges 9:8-15
8 One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, 'Be our king.'
9 "But the olive tree answered, 'Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and men are honored, to hold sway over the trees?'
10 "Next, the trees said to the fig tree, 'Come and be our king.'
11 "But the fig tree replied, 'Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?'
12 "Then the trees said to the vine, 'Come and be our king.'
13 "But the vine answered, 'Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and men, to hold sway over the trees?'
14 "Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, 'Come and be our king.'
15 "The thornbush said to the trees, 'If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!'
Trees and bushes can speak to each other?
And Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal went to Shechem to his mother's relatives, and spoke to them and to the whole clan of the household of his mother's father, saying, "Speak, now, in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem, 'Which is better for you, that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or that one man rule over you?' Also, remember that I am your bone and your flesh."
And his mother's relatives spoke all these words on his behalf in the hearing of all the leaders of Shechem; and they were inclined to follow Abimelech, for they said, "He is our relative."
They gave him seventy pieces of silver from the house of Baal-berith with which Abimelech hired worthless and reckless fellows, and they followed him.
Then he went to his father's house at Ophrah and killed his brothers the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men, on one stone. But Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left, for he hid himself.
All the men of Shechem and all Beth-millo assembled together, and they went and made Abimelech king, by the oak of the pillar which was in Shechem.
Now when they told Jotham, he went and stood on the top of Mount Gerizim, and lifted his voice and called out. Thus he said to them, "Listen to me, O men of Shechem, that God may listen to you. Once the trees went forth to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us!' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come, reign over us!' But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?' Then the trees said to the vine, 'You come, reign over us!' But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my new wine, which cheers God and men, and go to wave over the trees?' Finally all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come, reign over us!' The bramble said to the trees, 'If in truth you are anointing me as king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, may fire come out from the bramble and consume the cedars of Lebanon.'
"Now therefore, if you have dealt in truth and integrity in making Abimelech king, and if you have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have dealt with him as he deserved--for my father fought for you and risked his life and delivered you from the hand of Midian; but you have risen against my father's house today and have killed his sons, seventy men, on one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maidservant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your relative--if then you have dealt in truth and integrity with Jerubbaal and his house this day, rejoice in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you. But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech and consume the men of Shechem and Beth-millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem and from Beth-millo, and consume Abimelech."
Then Jotham escaped and fled, and went to Beer and remained there because of Abimelech his brother.
Bassam, you never cease to amaze me. You try to answer an objection and only manage to show that the objection has far more warrant than anyone had imagined. In my previous post, I tried to clarify your position by drawing some analogies. Since you had claimed that a woman who doesn’t dress according to Muslim regulations is partly responsible if she is raped, I attempted to show that this sort of reasoning, if correct, would apply to other situations (implying that practically every victim of a crime is worthy of blame). To see if you really believe your claim, I asked whether you would agree with the following parallel claim:
“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”
Interestingly, I thought you would agree that a person who parks his car in his driveway deserves no blame if his car is stolen, even though the car might not have been stolen if it had been covered with a tarp. Instead, you responded by saying that this example doesn’t do justice to the case of a woman who rejects Muslim clothing regulations. You even say that women who don’t dress according to Islamic law have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists!
Bassam said:
How logically fallacious could David’s examples be.
First, regarding the car example.
David’s example should been more like this…
“If you park your new car in the driveway, and you forgot to lock the door as you usually do and openly left your latptop and wallet on the car seat where everybody could see it as usual and your car and belongings then got stolen and the law of the country clearly states that you are not supposed to do so then you’re partly to blame.”
So if the person on a continuous basis makes himself or herself an easy target for thieves (just many women might do for rapists) and continually ignore the law of the country which states that citizens must always lock their doors and hide their personal belongings (just as the law of God commands the woman to dress up modestly) then I argue that yes, the person is party to blame. HOWEVER, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE PERSON DESERVES IT OR THAT THE CRIMINAL IS JUSTIFIED. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE VICTIM COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE SITUATION BY TAKING CERTAIN PRECAUTIONS.
This is quite frightening, Bassam. Again, I assumed that you felt that a woman is to blame in the same manner as a man who leaves a shiny new car uncovered in his driveway. That is, they both leave something out in the open which might provide an evil person with an opportunity to do something wrong. (Notice, there’s no logical fallacy in what I said. I’ve taught logic courses in the past, Bassam, and I notice that you like to toss around these accusations without actually understanding them.) However, as your comment shows, you believe that a woman is far more culpable than I had imagined. Instead of comparing a woman in a miniskirt to a man who leaves something valuable where others may see it, you compare her to a man who leaves his car out in the open, unlocked, unguarded, with valuable possessions ripe for the taking! In other words, a man who leaves his valuables out in the open, where anyone can quite easily take them, is going out of his way to make the theft as easy as possible. And this is what you think about a woman who shows off her legs because she thinks they are pretty! You believe that she is doing everything in her power to make it as easy and as tempting as possible for a man to rape her! Needless to say, non-Muslims don’t generally feel this way, which is why we’re so repulsed by your comments. (And, given these comments, your claim that you aren’t saying that such a woman “deserves it” sounds hollow.)
Um Yaquub said that she would be frightened if you were her neighbor, and you took great offense at this. But you should try to understand the perspective of a person who hasn’t been taught since childhood that women who dress in a certain manner are (almost deliberately) making themselves “easy targets” for rapists. This would sound frightening to any woman.
You replied by saying that you wouldn’t want a Christian woman as a neighbor, since she might wear a miniskirt and tempt your son. But here we see a tremendous area of disagreement between our two camps. Human beings only learn to overcome temptation by confronting it and conquering it. I don’t want to keep my son locked in a room all his life just so he won’t sin. Rather, I want my son to achieve victory over temptation. All of my sons will grow up in the West, and they will certainly face temptation. But in the process, they will learn to deal with it. When a woman walks down the street in a miniskirt, my sons won’t go into a frenzy, because they will have learned to overcome their passions. The Muslim goal is to keep their sons from so much as seeing a woman. Then, when a Muslim teenager sees a woman without a burka for the first time (having been taught that such women have made themselves “easy targets” for rapists), he goes berserk, because he has never learned to control himself. (Indeed, I don’t see any emphasis in Islam on teaching Muslim men to control themselves. Instead, Muslim men learn how to control women.)
This is why there’s such a tremendous problem with rape among Muslims in the West. I can’t imagine why you don’t see it, when the problem can be seen in your own words above!
Bassam said: “Show me narrations that state that the Muslims RAPED their slave girls. I DON’T’ WANT YOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SITUATIONS OR YOUR OPINIONS, SHOW ME THE PROOF. IF YOU DON’T THEN YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU MUST RETRACT THIS STATEMENT AND APOLOGISE.”
This was a nice try on your part. You want me to show you a narration saying that Muslims “raped” their slave girls. But you know as well as I do that in Islam, a female captive is the property of her owner, and he is free to have sex with her (since Muhammad granted men this right in the Qur’an). Hence, Muslims don’t view sex with captives as “rape,” regardless of whether the captives consent or not. This, of course, is a significant area of disagreement between Muslims and the West. In America, we would say that any sexual act in which the woman does not consent is an act of rape. Muhammad’s teachings, however, have kept the Muslim world in horrible darkness.
Keeping in mind the fact that Muslims would not use the word “rape” in describing sex with unwilling women, it is quite easy to meet your challenge. I know that you are familiar with the women of Banu al-Mustaliq. Muhammad and his followers killed the men, then took the women captive. The Muslims were a long way from home, and they wanted to have sex with the women. However, they also wanted to sell the women into slavery, so they didn’t want to get the women pregnant. They therefore decided to practice coitus interruptus, where the man pulls out his penis before ejaculating in the woman. They brought the entire matter before Muhammad, who had no objections to the Muslims having sex with the women. Indeed, Muhammad’s only recommendation was that the men shouldn’t use coitus interruptus!
So what do we have here? Muhammad and his followers slaughter the men of Banu al-Mustaliq and take the women as captives. Soon, the Muslims are going to sell the women into slavery. But the men want to have sex with their captives first, since the Qur’an guarantees their right to do so. We know, then, that the Muslims had sex with these women, whose families had just been slaughtered by Muslims and who were about to become slaves at the hands of Muhammad. The only question for us is whether these women wanted to have sex with the men who had annihilated their husbands and fathers, or whether they didn’t want to have sex with these men. I think it’s obvious that the women of Banu al-Mustaliq wouldn’t have wanted to have sex with the Muslims, especially since the men were about to sell them into slavery (where they would likely be further sexually abused). Hence, Muhammad granted his men the right to have sex with women who would have been repulsed at the thought of having sex with their Muslim captors, and this qualifies as rape. Your challenge, Bassam, is easily met. (For plenty of references, see “Muhammad and the Female Captives.”)
On a different matter, you continue to argue that Isaiah 3:17 talks about women being raped because they were haughty. You claim that “most” modern versions translate the passage as “secret parts.” I have eighteen English translations of the Old Testament, and only nine of them translate the passage as “secret parts.” The other half use some variation of “laying the head bare.” You claim that the word “scalp” isn’t in the text, but I must point out that (and here’s the key) neither is “secret parts”! The passage simply refers to something being laid bare. Some translators conclude that the passage is saying that the women’s bodies will be laid bare, while others (more literally) translate the verse as saying that the women’s heads will be laid bare. Notice, Bassam, that this latter translation fits the context much better, and is therefore the preferred translation. The women were rejecting the teachings of God, and had even become proud of it. To show their high status, they were wearing all sorts of ornaments on their heads. It certainly makes sense to think that Isaiah 3:17 says that their heads would be laid bare. But regardless of what you think, you can’t use a clearly ambiguous passage to support your argument just because you want to feel better about the Muslim view that rape is okay in certain situations.
You also claim that I am here doing the same thing I accused you of doing when you wanted to deny Muslims their right to beat their wives. But the situations are hardly comparable. I pointed out that Isaiah 3:17 may be translated in various ways, and that the most literal translation of the verse (as well as many others) has nothing to do with women being raped. Is that the case with Surah 4:34? Do half of our translations say nothing about beating women? On the contrary, all of my English translations guarantee a husband the right to beat his wife if she gets out of line. But you ignore the obvious meaning of the verse simply because you know that it is extremely offensive (and, perhaps, because deep down you have a better moral outlook than Muhammad). Again, the two cases are not the same.
Bassam said: “David keeps saying ‘thanks to Muhammad’, yet he is never able to prove that it is so.”
Perhaps I’m not able to prove it to you, since you’re quite unwilling to see any problems in Muhammad’s teachings. But to any non-Muslim, it is quite clear that many of the problems we see in the Muslim world result from the teachings of Muhammad. For instance, when women are raped, they are rarely able to establish this in court. Why? Because Muhammad declared that a woman’s testimony is only half as valuable as a man’s. Hence, when a woman says, “That man raped me!” and the man says, “No, she’s just a prostitute,” the courts must give higher status to the man’s testimony. The woman, of course, goes to jail (or takes some lashes).
And, again, we know that Muhammad allowed Muslims to have sex with their female captives, regardless of whether the captives were willing or not. This is certainly relevant to the way many Muslims view rape in the world today. Muhammad showed how infidels were to be treated. Is it a surprise that Muslims rape infidels today?
Bassam said: “You can check Sunan Abu Dawud, Book Book 38, Number 4366 in which the Prophet commands a rapist to be killed.”
I had a reason for asking you to share the details of this rape, Bassam. And yet you left out the details. Notice (1) that the woman was a Muslim in good standing, (2) that she was raped while praying, and (3) that the man confessed that he had raped her. No one is saying that Islam does not punish rapists who confess that they have raped good Muslim women during prayer. What we are saying is that Islam has practically nothing to say about a Muslim who rapes a non-Muslim (or even a Muslim) woman and denies his crime. In fact, in the Muslim world, it is the woman who will typically be punished in such situations.
If you’d like to continue, Bassam, I’d be happy to. We can have “Bassam Zawadi on Rape,” Parts Four, Five, and Six. But hopefully you are learning that, at least in the eyes of people who are able to critically evaluate Muhammad’s commands, Islam is full of offensive, repulsive, horrendous teachings.
In my last post, I pointed out Bassam’s frightening comment that governments are luring men to rape women by not implementing stricter clothing laws. Bassam’s claim is quite consistent with Muslim views. The problem, of course, is that because of this twisted view of women, many Muslims around the world see a woman’s dress as an invitation to rape. Moreover, Muslim authorities in many countries simply will not punish rapists. Bassam replied to my post, and I will address his comments.
Bassam said: “Did I say that if women who dress shamelessly lure men to rape them and are responsible? Yes they are partly responsible for if they didn't dress shamelessly then they wouldn't have enticed the rapist to attack them. This is basic logic that no one can argue with.”
So Bassam admits that he is claiming that a woman is “partly responsible” if she is raped, provided she was dressed immodestly, since the rape may not have occurred had she been dressed in Muslim garb. Now compare Bassam’s view to the following claims:
“If you park your new car in the driveway, and it gets stolen, you’re partly to blame, since new cars entice people to steal them, and you didn’t cover your car with a tarp.”
“If you’re black, and you go to a neighborhood full of white supremacists, and they kill you, it’s partly your fault, since you wouldn’t have been killed if you hadn’t gone to their neighborhood.”
If Bassam really believes what he says about women (and I know he does), then he should agree with these other claims.
Bassam said: “Did I say that THE RAPIST IS NOT TO BLAME? This is absurd. The Prophet punished the rapist with death. It is the rapist's fault for not lowering his gaze as commanded by God in Surah 24 and he has no authority to 'punish' a woman for dressing immodestly for this is vigilantism. It is the government's duty to ensure that women dress appropriately in the society and they definately don't take measures such as rape in order to do that.”
(1) “Did I say that the rapist is not to blame?” I never said that you claimed this. My point is that this is what happens in the Muslim world. Muslim men see a woman who isn’t dressed according to Muslim standards, and they gang-rape her. The woman complains to the police. The police talk to the men, who say, “We thought the woman was a prostitute, because of the way she was dressed.” Since the testimony of women isn’t equal to that of a man in Islam, the police must side with the rapists. Best case scenario, the men will be charged with fornication. But they won’t be charged with rape. Most likely, they won’t be charged with anything. The woman, if she is in the right Muslim country, may even go to jail. Like it or not, Bassam, this is what happens over, and over, and over in the Muslim world (thanks to Muhammad).
(2) “The Prophet punished the rapist with death.” Bassam, please give readers the details and sources regarding Muhammad’s command that rapists be killed. Of course, you have to admit that it was perfectly acceptable for Muslims to rape their female captives (since Muhammad himself allowed this). And that’s the problem. Muhammad definitely allowed rape in certain situations. Why not rape a woman who needs to be taught a lesson?
(3) You claimed that it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce clothing restrictions. But your government does enforce clothing restrictions—by allowing men to rape women who don’t follow the rules. You can’t deny this, Bassam. You know that’s what happens in your country. If a woman is dressed immodestly, and she is raped, the government will ignore her cries for justice, just as it will ignore the pleas of a woman who is constantly assaulted by her husband (thanks to Muhammad).
Bassam said: “What I find most interesting is that the very thing that David is repulsed by in his article is found in his Bible. For the God of the Bible allegedly commanded women to be raped because they were haughty!!! They used to be proud of their adornments and therefore God said that they asked for it!!!”
Bassam gave a link to this article, which argues that in Isaiah 3:17 God punishes haughty women with rape. According to the translation in the article, Isaiah 3:17 says: "Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts." The article goes on to argue that “discover their secret parts” means that the women will be raped.
The problem here is that this argument is (perhaps deliberately) based on an outdated and flawed translation of Isaiah. Consider two modern translations, the first being the most popular English translation, the second being the most literal English translation:
New International Version: "Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the LORD will make their scalps bald."
New American Standard Bible: "Therefore the Lord will afflict the scalp of the daughters of Zion with scabs, And the LORD will make their foreheads bare."
Is there anything about rape here? Not at all! And this makes it all the more shocking when Bassam triumphantly comments: "I PROVED IT FROM YOUR BIBLE THAT WOMEN WERE RAPED FOR BEING HAUGHTY. SHOW ME THIS SAME DISPICABLE THING IN ISLAM."
Show him the same thing in Islam? Just watch the news, Bassam. It happens all the time (thanks to Muhammad).
Muslims often claim that their religion only allows violence when Islam is being threatened. It is important to note, however, that, as far as Islam is concerned, a “threat” doesn’t need to be an invading army. Insults against Muhammad, criticisms against Islam, hindering the preaching of Islam—all of this qualifies as an attack against Islam, and Muslims are called upon to react violently.
Interestingly enough, Bassam has admitted some of this in his comments. Responding to a question about Muslims invading foreign lands, Bassam said:
“As for invasions by islamic armies. They invaded lands whose rulers were oppressing them. They invaded lands that put a barrier between the preaching of Islam to the people, its like putting a barrier between the doctor and patient.”
So according to Bassam, it is okay for Muslims to invade a land (i.e. to use violence), if the country is interfering with the preaching of Islam. I pointed out to Bassam that, if Christians used his line of reasoning, they could invade
Bassam’s response was amazingly accurate and insightful. He said:
“Well, no it wouldn't be right for you because your religion does not teach that this is something that you should do if such a situation arises. Our religion does. Therefore, it would be wrong for you since your religion doesn't teach it and your doing this from your own line of reasoning.”
As Sunil pointed out, Bassam has admitted that, while Islam allows violence in such a situation, Christianity does not. And it is amazing to read such an honest reply. Notice what Bassam has acknowledged here. If a country refuses to allow Muslim preachers to enter the land and preach to non-Muslims, followers of Muhammad are called upon to declare war and conquer the land! This can hardly be viewed as a defensive war.
My point here is simply that when Muslims claim that they may only kill in self-defense, their definition of “self-defense” is much broader than people might expect. Any interference with the message of Islam, whether the offenders have used physical force or not, is grounds for violence. I have to agree with Bassam, however, that Christians may not resort to such tactics.
