Wear Bed Sheets or Get Bedded Say Muslims

It is hard to know why a Muslim like Sami Zaatari would complain that the Old Testament has a law that required a rape victim to marry her rapist. Of course there is no such law in the Bible, but since women who don't dress "modestly," i.e. like ghosts wearing bed sheets, are not innocent when they get raped according to Muslims and they are really "asking for it," why shouldn't it be an acceptable civil response? Islamic law teaches that it is permissible for two people who engage in fornication to later repent of their sin and get married, so why isn't it the same in cases of rape where both parties are complicit (according to Muslim reasoning)? Things that make you go hmmmmm.....

Eggs Over My Sami - Part One

Have you ever been embarrassed because you said something before thinking about what you were going to say? If so, then you have some idea of the embarrassment that Muslim dawagandist Sami Zataari experiences on a regular basis when trying to defend Islam or attack Christianity. The following post will discuss a recent incident where Sami ended up with egg on his face, and how subsequent attempts to clean it off only ended up rubbing it in.

Recently Sami wrote an article attacking the wisdom and justice of what God revealed through Moses in the Torah in regard to cases of seduction and/or rape of unbetrothed virgins. I replied to that article here. Sami has now “replied” to my article and, although he ignored most of what I said in my reply and didn’t even so much as try to renew what he originally touted as his major argument, he did pick out handful of things that he thought he could reply to, but not without significant distortion of what I was arguing in the process. All of this is ironic since in his latest attack on the Law of Moses – which his own false prophet claimed to believe in (Abu Dawud, 38.4434.4431), said he came to confirm (Q. 3:3-4, 46:12, 46:30), and told Jews and Christians to judge by (Q. 5:43-47) – he titled me a “wanna-be apologist” and insinuated that I don’t know what a refutation is. Someone should take Sami aside and tell him that a refutation is not: ignoring most of what your opponent says, distorting what remains of your opponents argument, and failing to defend what you heralded as your strongest point. In any event, I am happy to hold onto Sami’s title for a day, a title he has been passing around for years with Nadir Ahmed and Osama Abdullah, because it affords me an opportunity to show that Sami’s reasoning is so abysmal that he can’t refute a wanna-be. When I am finished, I will of course insist that Sami take his well-earned and well-worn title back. Besides, I wouldn’t want Sami to be empty handed when Nadir and Osama come calling because they want their turn wearing a belt that was obviously tailor made for the three of them.

According to Sami’s original argument, the passages in question concerns rape, an act (typically) involving a male forcing himself upon a non-consenting female. This is what Sami thought could be gleaned from the following case law:

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Although I continued to use the word rape in my reply to Sami, I made it clear at the outset that I disagree with what he clearly intends when he uses the term. I even linked to an article by Sam Shamoun that goes into the matter in great detail (*). But Sami ignored this all-important starting point in his response, so let me at least briefly spell it out for Sami before I proceed.

The previous verses in the book of Deuteronomy deal with the issue of adultery between two consenting parties, where at least the girl is already married. The penal sanction in cases of this sort is death for both the man and the woman:

If a man is found lying (shakab) with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 22:22)

The same thing applies if a man has consensual sex with a girl who is betrothed to a man, as the verses that immediately follow show:

If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies (shakab) with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

In cases where a man forces a betrothed girl to have sexual relations with him, the penalty is death for the man but not for the girl, for only the man is guilty of wrongdoing:

But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her (chazaq) and lies (shakab) with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her. (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

It is clear from the above that in cases of adultery and rape the penalty is death for the offending parties or party, not marriage or merely paying a fine.

In contrast to the above, when a man takes a girl who is not betrothed and has sex with her, where it is assumed that she complied or consented to the act since she is not said to have cried out, and also because the verse speaks of the man and the woman BOTH being “discovered” or “found,” an observation strengthened by a comparison with verse 22, where a man is said to be “found” having consensual sex with another man’s wife, the penalty is different. In such cases principal (though not exclusive) blame is laid upon the man who, though the girl consented, is considered to have seduced and violated her by taking her and laying with her without the consent of her father, under whose authority she was because unbetrothed, and whose right it was to give her away in marriage.

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes (taphas) her and lies (shakab) with her, AND THEY ARE FOUND, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

The closest analogy to this in western societies is what is called statutory rape, where it is called rape not on the grounds that the man who violated the girl forced her to do what she did not want, but on the grounds that she was under age. The disparity between this and what the Bible teaches is that “rape” is determined not on the basis of age as such but on the grounds that the girl, as unbetrothed, is still under the authority of her father and therefore incapable of independently giving her consent to the man. This is similar to the fact that a girl’s oath is not binding if her father upon hearing of it does not consent (Numbers 30:3-5).

That this involves consensual sex is also clear from the parallel verse in the Torah that I pointed out to Sami, which he dutifully ignored in his response, where the man is said to have seduced (not forced; chazaq) the woman:

If a man SEDUCES (pathah) a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

Dr. Bahnsen’s comments on all of this are on point:

“If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, an he lays hold of her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]

This is the literal translation of the Hebrew. Unfortunately, some commentators and Bible translations….make the mistake of interpreting these words as referring to the use of force and thus to raping a virgin.  Such a view is quite unacceptable, for a number of reasons.  (1) This would lay a burden and penalty on the woman who had no part or consent in the act, which is as unfair and senseless as punishing the victim of attempted murder.

(2) The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something.  It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15).  It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8).  Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. I Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17).  People are “caught” (I Kings 20:18), even as cities are “captured” (Deut. 20:19; Isa. 36:1).  An adulterous wife may not have been “caught” in the act (Num. 5:13).  In all of these instances it is clear that, while force may come into the picture from further description, the Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.

This verb used in Deuteronomy 22:28 is different from the verb used in verse 25 (chazak, from the root meaning “to be strong, firm”) which can mean “to seize” a bear and kill it (I Sam. 17:35; cf. 2 Sam. 2:16; Zech. 14:13), “to prevail” (2 Sam. 24:4; Dan. 11:7), “to be strong” (Deut. 31:6; 2 Sam. 2:7), etc.  Deuteronomy 22:25 thus speaks of a man finding a woman and “forcing her.”  Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply “take hold of” her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25 (viz., rape).

(3) The Hebrew word anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 can sometimes be used for forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11) but need not indicate a forcible rape, which is clear from the Deuteronomy passage itself at verse 24.  It can simply mean to dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11; Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 119:67), and in sexual settings can denote other kinds of sin than rape (Ezek. 22:10, 11).

We can agree with the reasoning of James Jordan: “At first sight, this seems to allow for rape of an unbetrothed girl.  In Hebrew, however, the verb ‘seize’ is a weaker verb than the verb for ‘force’ used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe rape.  This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11).  Implied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance.  Modern random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 149).

Accordingly, one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape.  For instance:

Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

Matthew Henry: “. . . if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

J. A. Thompson:  “Seduction of a young girl.  Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl.  He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).

In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

Even if one has some question about the applicability of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the clear and decisive command from God when a man has seduced a virgin is found in Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife.  If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the dowry for virgins.”

In this text there is no question whatsoever of forcible rape.  The Hebrew verb used to describe the sin (italicized in the quotation above) is patah, used elsewhere for “coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov. 1:10; 16:29).  When a man gets a virgin to consent to have sexual relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her – as the following commentators indicate:

John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible . . . with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: . . . he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged . . ..  Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).

(Greg Bahnsen, “Pre-Marital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed?,” PE152, Covenant Media Foundation, 1992)

The above by itself does away with Sami’s makeshift argument, as well as his question about whether I would give my daughter in marriage to someone who “raped” her,

Mr. Anthony, if a man raped your daughter, would you ask her if she wanted to marry him? And if he she refused, would you be satisfied by merely giving him a fine that he has to pay you?

for as is apparent, the case in question is not rape in the sense that Sami is using the term, as is especially obvious from another article Sami recently wrote, where he proves that he completely glossed over the article from Sam that I linked to that would have explained this to him, thus justifying my remark that Sami speaks first and thinks (or is forced to think) later:

Sam Shamoun and his fellow missionary Anthony Rogers recently displayed their lack of critical thinking skills when they equated the act of consensual marriage, to that of a rapist marrying his rape victim. So in the eyes of these missionaries, consensual actions, are equal to nonconsensual actions, such as forced sex, i.e. rape. (*)

Sami’s entire argument (and the strength of his question to me), therefore, rests on equivocation, which is notoriously fallacious. This is the sort of thing for which a person would get laughed off of a freshmen debate team (though not, apparently, the team at MDI).

In addition to the above, Sami originally argued that according to Mosaic Law the raper had to marry the rape victim (“the punishment for the captor is that he must marry the girl”), AND the rape victim had to marry the raper (“So the virgin must marry the rapist”). So per Sami’s original reading of the text, the penal sanction for raping a woman was mutual and rested on both parties.

Unfortunately for Sami, as I pointed out, this isn’t all that the Torah tells us, for the parallel or equivalent statute as given in Exodus, quoted already above, tells us that the father can refuse:

If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely REFUSES to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)

And since, as I also pointed out, Israelite women also had a say in who they would marry, as is evident from the fact that the person had to be “pleasing in their eyes” (e.g. Numbers 36:6), Sami was clearly shown to be wrong when he said that both parties to a case of seduction were mutually obligated to contract marriage.

But in his response Sami, still trying to get mileage out of his equivocal understanding of the kind of rape that is in view, pretends that I have simply agreed with him:

So therefore he agrees, that the Bible does teach a rapist must marry the victim, his only rebuttal is that she has to agree to it! So the main argument stands: THE BIBLE HAS A LAW THAT CALLS FOR THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN THE RAPIST AND RAPE VICTIM.

But for anyone who can follow an argument, I clearly have not “simply” agreed with Sami, and that for at least two reasons:

1) Sami originally made a compound (not a simple) claim, i.e. the rapist has to marry the victim and the victim has to marry the rapist, and at the very least it must be seen I have denied the latter part of Sami’s claim: both the woman and her father can refuse to give their consent to one who had seduced and enticed the girl into having sex, thus taking advantage of her youth and gullibility.

and,

2) I do not believe the Bible is talking about rape in the sense Sami is using the term; so I can hardly be agreeing with what Sami means when he speaks of the Bible calling for a “rapist” to marry his victim.

In addition to the above, Sami at the first argued that instead of requiring a seducer to marry the girl he sleeps with the Lord should have given an incentive to other men to marry girls who have had their virginity taken from them.

In reply to this I pointed out that the Lord did Sami one better: He gave a law that was calculated to dissuade men from even taking and laying with girls who have not been given to them in marriage. This is the whole point of the prescribed penal sanctions.

According to the law, a man who takes a girl not betrothed or married to him can either have a dowry taken from him without the benefit of getting her as a wife in return; or he can be required to marry her without the right of divorce.

The serious implications of this were clearly spelled out for Sami. In spite of this, Sami in his reply hoped that by some fancy footwork or verbal legerdemain he could pretend that this does not involve any punishment(s) worthy of the name, or that the punishment(s) is(are) not commensurate with the crime (which Sami believes was “forced sex”). Here are some choice quotes from Sami:

But the father may also choose to not marry him to his daughter, and he will only have to pay a fine. So according to Anthony, one can rape a lady, and just get off with a fine! He basically simply had to pay for his rape services. How nice. (Italics and bold mine)

This is where Anthony can’t keep up with his own rubbish arguments, according to Anthony, MARRIAGE IS NOT AN OBLIGATION, it is an OPTION, and if the marriage is not done, he only has to pay a fine. Tell me, does that sound like a calculated law to discourage men from raping, where his only punishment is a fine? Wow, what a great calculated discouragement from rape! (Italics and bold mine)

The biggest laugh at all of this is that Anthony claims I have an inferior moral sense, when he’s the one trying to justify a rapist marrying his rape victim, and when he is the one saying the punishment for a rapist could potentially only be a fine. Yes, and I am the one with a moral inferior sense. (Italics and bold mine)

Remembering of course that the law in question is not about rape in any unqualified sense, and much less in the sense that Sami is thinking of it, there is no “only,” “just” or “simply” about the prescribed penalty as Sami flippantly states. The punishment of foregoing a wife but still having to pay 50 shekels was no light matter for the average Israelite. 50 shekels was a hefty sum of money that did not come easily for most people in ancient Israel.

Ordinarily a person would negotiate with the father on the dowry for a girl. In cases of a man seductively imposing himself on another man’s daughter without his consent, the dowry was necessarily high and non-negotiable. As one commentator explains:

Let us consider the case of seduction. There is no doubt that the father, under the jurisdiction of the judges, was allowed to establish a bride price requirement for the seducer, and even prohibit the marriage after having collected it. Obviously, only the State could have lawfully enforced such a penalty.

When the State enters the picture to enforce a private decision, there must be upper limits on the punishment if liberty under predictable law is to be preserved. At the same time, the penalty must be high enough to deter the immoral behavior. Thus, the maximum bride price that could be imposed by the father with the consent of the judges could and would be different from normally negotiated bride prices. We know what that upper limit was: 50 shekels of silver. I call this compulsory maximum the formal bride price, in contrast to the normal or negotiated bride price, in which the State was not involved. It is specified in Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

The formal bride price of 50 shekels of silver specified here was far higher than the common dowry in Israel. This was a great deal of money. It was not required of every suitor. The Old Testament did not establish a fixed price so high that only a few women could have become wives, with most of them being forced by a government- imposed price floor to settle for status as concubines (wives without dowries) instead. What the law did was to establish a penalty price so high that it discouraged seduction. It also discouraged false accusations of whoredom.

The threat of the imposition of the formal bride price was designed to restrain the present-orientation of the couple - in this case, the lure of instant sexual gratification. The bride price jumped automatically to 50 shekels of silver in such instances. This economic threat forced marriage arrangements into specific patterns as family-authorized covenants, with the parents and older brothers of the girl as the agents with primary authority to inaugurate or veto her decision. This threat also forced irresponsible, short-sighted young men to save for the future, to develop good character traits. The normal bride price was a covenantal screening instrument; the formal bride price was a covenantal disciplining instrument.

The seducer placed himself outside the normal competitive position of a suitor. He was in no legal position to bargain effectively with the girl's father. Shechem pleaded: 'Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife" (Gen 34:12). The father of a seduced girl was in a position to demand up to 50 shekels of silver from the young man, which probably would have involved many years of servitude on his part, unless his family was rich. The seducer could even be re- quired to pay her father the 50 shekels of silver, and then not be allowed to marry the girl. (G. North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus [Institute for Christian Economics, 1990], pp. 648-649)

To see how high this was we only need to consider that: 50 shekels was two and a half times the price paid for Joseph when he was sold into slavery hundreds of years earlier (Genesis 37:28); it was also the very amount exacted by Menahem from “all the mighty men of wealth” in order to pay Pul, the King of Assyria (1 Kings 15:17-22). To quote North again:

What was the value of 50 shekels of silver? We cannot know for sure, since at different times in the ancient world, silver's value would have fluctuated, just as it fluctuates today. We know that the atonement money paid by Israelite adult males when they were numbered for military service was half a shekel (Ex. 30:15). If this was half a shekel of silver, then the maximum bride payment was a hundred times this large. An ox that killed another person's bondservant brought a payment of 30 shekels of silver to the owner of the servant (Ex. 21:32). An adult male slave was valued at 50 shekels of silver for the purpose of making a vow payment to the sanctuary (Lev. 27:3). This was a form of servitude to God. We know that the ownership of slaves was sufficiently expensive so that very few families could afford them in the ancient world.

The price of twenty shekels of silver for a male slave under age twenty (Lev. 27:5) corresponds with the twenty shekels paid to joseph's brothers by the caravan that bought joseph (Gen. 37:28). This indicates a remarkably stable monetary system throughout the Middle East, from joseph's day at least until the giving of the Mosaic law over two centuries later. Mendelsohn provides slave prices in the surrounding cultures, and these are reasonably commensurate with the prices listed in Leviticus 27. The purchase of a slave gained the buyer the net return from a lifetime of service from a slave. We are not talking about merely a Hebrew's seven-year term of service, for the caravan bought Joseph for resale into permanent servitude. Thirty shekels of silver must have been a lot of money; 50 shekels was that much more. (North, ibid., pp. 656-657)

At this point Sami think he has already detected a serious flaw in such reasoning, for he points out that the above would neither be a deterrent nor a serious punishment for a rich person.

And what if the man is rich? We know many rich men engage in rape, so paying a fine wouldn’t be a big problem for them as they would easily be able to afford it, but hey this was a ‘calculated’ law to discourage men from rape, right…

But what Sami overlooked is that a rich person who may not be deterred by the stipulated fine should certainly have been deterred by the fact that the Father (with the girl’s consent) could determine to force the man to marry his daughter, something a father would be more inclined to do in light of the man’s wealth and ability to provide for his daughter, and that without the right of divorce, which would mean that the man would have the responsibility of providing for the girl, while yet she would have no necessary reason to submit to him.

For Sami as a Muslim to say that this is not a deterrent or a punishment is laughable. What would be more humiliating to a misogynistic Muslim male than to be absolutely under the thumb of a woman? What Muslim would give up the great “blessing” of being able to put a whooping on his wife and threaten her with divorce if she does not recognize that he has charge over her and if she did not comply with his demands (Q. 4:34)?

So as it turns out, what Sami perceived as a problem for Christianity the size of the Grand Canyon turns out not even to be a crack in the sidewalk. Perhaps the error on his part is due to the fact that he is looking at the Bible (and the world) through cracked eggs.

Stay tuned. I will have much more to say in reply to Sami. 

Sami Zaatari vs. Revolution Muslim

It's no shock to anyone that I'm not a fan of Muhammad. Nevertheless, I also believe in being nice to people, unless there's a very good reason not to be nice. Thus, I don't go around calling Muhammad a "pedophile" or drawing pictures of him--not because I care about Muhammad's feelings (he's dead), but because there's no need to pointlessly upset people. The same attitude is held by most critics of Islam, as well as by most of the people who visit this blog.

Yet many of us believe that it is morally wrong to comply with terrorist threats. To back down when threatened is to encourage further threats. When terrorists are attacking our fundamental rights, the situation is even worse. The Founding Fathers of the United States were willing to lay down their lives so that future generations would have certain freedoms. Success for groups like Revolution Muslim would mean the end of these freedoms. Thus, when terrorists say, "Don't do X, or you'll end up like Theo Van Gogh," the natural response is to show the world what all the fuss is about, and how silly it is to want to kill someone over something like this:


(I posted the Danish cartoons several years ago here when the riots started.)

But Revolution Muslim got what they wanted. Comedy Central is now terrified of even mentioning Muhammad in a cartoon. Even Molly Norris, who suggested an international "Draw Muhammad" Day, backed down almost immediately. She's now going to Muslim meetings to show that she's repented of her sin (of standing up for free speech). Yet others aren't so quick to give up their freedoms, and there is a desire to teach terrorists a lesson when they try to intimidate people. The attitude seems to be: "If you threaten us for doing X, we're going to do X even more. Eventually you'll learn to quit threatening us."

Of course, there are many different positions one may take. On one end of the spectrum, there are people who want to draw cartoons of Muhammad simply to offend Muslims. Their desire to offend Muslims has nothing to do with the recent threats to Matt Stone and Trey Parker; they're simply using this as an opportunity to vent the anger they already had. On the other end of the spectrum are Muslims who want to slaughter anyone who dares criticize, insult, or draw Muhammad. Some of them are dying for an excuse to kill a kafir. Most of us, whether Christian or Muslim, are somewhere in between these extremes.

Take Sami Zaatari, who offers a different response to cartoons of Muhammad:



Consider some of the differences between Sami's method and Revolution Muslim's method.

(1) Sami's method is less likely to start a massive cartoon campaign against Muhammad. There's nothing in the video that would be considered a threat to free speech, and therefore nothing to upset people. The angry folks at the end of the spectrum are going to continue drawing pictures of Muhammad (just as Muslims at the opposite end will continue shouting threats), but the rest of the world will have no desire to go overboard.

(2) Revolution Muslim's method is more likely to cause networks like Comedy Central to back down. That is, like it or not, the threat of violence can be effective to a certain degree. In the long run, however, such threats may be counterproductive. Consider the Danish Cartoon Controversy. If Muslims of the world had remained quiet and peaceful in response to the cartoons, no one would even remember the cartoons, and South Park wouldn't have bothered responding.

(3) Both methods are in line with Muhammad's teachings. We have records of Muhammad enduring persecution without immediate retaliation, and we have records of Muhammad ordering the deaths of those who insult him. Indeed, since the position of Muslims in the West is similar to the position of the early Muslim community in Mecca (i.e. they are a minority), and since Muhammad didn't resort to violence when he was significantly outnumbered, one could argue that Muslims in the West should not resort to violence when Muhammad is insulted (at least until the Muslim population increases dramatically).

(4) If success is the goal (that is, if Muslims really don't want to see Muhammad insulted), threats certainly aren't the way to go. It's only a matter of time before people like Parker and Stone go on a cartoon rampage, and this wouldn't happen if Muslims weren't trying to intimidate people into giving Islam a privileged status.

(5) Sami's approach leads to further dialogue and investigation, while Revolution Muslim's approach leads to further threats (from Muslims) and insults (from non-Muslims). For instance, Sami proposes videos about Muhammad's wonderful teachings. I'll most likely respond to those videos, arguing that Muslims are ripping the teachings out of context, ignoring other teachings, etc., at which point Muslims will disagree with me, and I'll disagree with them, and they'll call me an islamophobe, and I'll do three episodes of "Jesus or Muhammad" on the issues, etc. But isn't this back-and-forth better than the threats-insults-more threats-more insults exchange?

With all of this said, I think it's too late. Sami will likely get a good response, but groups like Revolution Muslim will continue to threaten people, and people will respond with insults, and so on. I see a spiral starting.

Sami Zaatari Exposed?

Someone put together a YouTube page on Sami Zaatari here (Ben Malik posted the link in the comments section of Sami's debate with James). My questions are as follows:

(1) Are the emails in the video really from Sami, or is this just deception (i.e. is someone making things up to attack Sami)?

(2) If the emails are from Sami, were they from several years ago or were they recent? (I can hardly hold them against him if they were written when he was a teenager.)

The answers to these questions will certainly affect my view of the relevance of these videos. I think we should all wait to hear from Sami before we make any final judgments.

*****UPDATE***** The answers to questions (1) and (2) above are "Yes, the emails were from Sami," and "They are recent," respectively. However, according to Sami, the videos hardly present an accurate picture of events. A fuller account may be read in the comments section. It seems that an atheist was threatening Sami and his family, and that Sami simply lost his temper. The general consensus among readers here is that we won't hold this temporary outburst against Sami. I would add this: If anyone sees these videos floating around on other sites, please link to this post so that both sides of the story are heard.

*****2ND UPDATE***** Some have asked Sami to provide evidence for his claims. He sent me this picture, which shows that someone told him, on March 22nd, that his personal information had been posted on the internet.


*****3RD UPDATE***** Sami has posted an apology video, offering an "olive branch" to Sami-Z-Exposed. I'm glad we've been able to help take care of this situation rather quickly here on Answering Muslims, and I hope that everyone will accept Sami's apology.

Sami Zaatari vs. James White: "Jesus: Divine Son of God or Prophet of Allah?"

This debate, as expected, was pretty one-sided. Sam Shamoun provides some interesting commentary here.

Censoring the Christian Debater

Here's an interesting post by Keith Truth on his PalTalk debate with Sami Zaatari. Notice the deception and desperation on the part of Muslims. If a Christian tried a stunt like this, Christians would rebuke him. In the Muslim world, however, such tactics are perfectly acceptable. Muslims never cease to amaze me.

Semper Paratus Responds to Sami Zaatari

Semper Paratus, a frequent guest on this blog, has just posted a response to Sami Zaatari's "refutation" of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Whatever Zaatari thinks he has shown, I must confess at the outset, if he did not say in the article that he was attacking the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, I would have thought that his article was against Mormonism or some other heretical perversion of the Biblical faith. The fact is, the idea that God is "made up of three people", as Zaatari styles it, and that this is, pardon the grammatically awkward and theologically repugnant expression, "basically exactly like having 3 people in an office, Tom Dick and Harry", is hardly something that any orthodox Christian would recognize as the teaching of the Bible or as the God that he or she seeks to love with all his or her heart, soul, mind, and strength. Indeed, take away the Christian terminology of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”, which Sami grafted onto his counterfeit description of the Christian God, and substitute other more appropriate names in their place – such as al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat – and what Sami has described looks more like the gods that Islam’s prophet once proclaimed at the prompting of Satan than it does anything like the God of Christianity. Read more.

Responding to Sami Zaatari: A Case Study in Misinterpretation

This article is mostly a response to Sami Zaatari, but there is a universal learning point at the end. If you'd like to skip to it, now's the time :-)


A few weeks ago, I posted an article titled "Sharia in Practice: Letting Muslim Girls Burn for Lack of Modesty". The article highlights the 2002 Mecca school fire in which at least 15 girls died. The cause of their deaths? Mutaween, or the Sharia Police, would not let the girls out of the burning school, nor would they let rescuers in, because the girls were not dressed modestly enough.

Aside from quoting Time magazine, that was the entirety of my post. I made no claim that burning girls for lack of modesty is enjoined on Muslims through Sharia. Not once did I say Muhammad taught this, that the Quran teaches this, or that any school of Islamic thought teaches this.

Sami Zaatari, the Muslim apologist who runs the site muslim-responses.com, has published an online response to this article. In his usual form, he took my words and interpreted them to mean whatever he wanted. In response to my article, he has said:

So here is a challenge for Nabeel:

-Bring a SINGLE Quranic verse, or authentic Hadith that says Muslims should burn immodest women

In fact I will save Nabeel some time, no such text exists, there is no such Islamic ruling, Nabeel is simply being ignorant, and is simply spreading false propaganda, simple as that.

Let us examine four problems with Sami's response:

Problem Number 1 - Did I ever claim that according to Sharia, a Muslim should burn immodest women? No! Nowhere in my article did I claim this. My article was not titled "Sharia law states women should burn for immodesty". It was "Sharia in practice: Letting Muslim girls burn for lack of modesty". Sami grossly misinterpreted my words.

As anyone with basic English interpretation skills and rudimentary honesty would conclude from the title alone, the article was not about how Sharia should be practiced, but rather Sharia in practice, and how it has resulted in the immolation of young girls. This is an undeniable fact, as undeniable as the fact that the Saudi government forgave the mutaween for their decision to let the girls die.

Problem Number 2 - Sami is wrong with an implicit fact as well. He has equated A: "letting girls burn for immodesty" to B: "burning girls for immodesty". A is a passive act, but B is a choice to kill. A and B are thus very different from each other, with B being a much worse crime. Sami claims that I declared B to be allowed in Sharia. This is an even more preposterous interpretation than problem number 1! As I said above, I was not making any statements regarding the normative application of Sharia, but beyond this, my claim was that the mutaween are guilty of A, not B! Of course, even this confusion could have been avoided if Sami had simply interpreted the title of the article accurately.

Problem Number 3 - Sami then went on to call me ignorant. Apart from being judgmental, Sami is simply wrong again. I ignored no aspect of my article, and made no uninvestigated claim.

Problem Number 4 - Finally, Sami states that I am simply spreading false propaganda. How can this be the case, when my whole article simply consisted of reporting an event which even Time Magazine reports? This is a horrible attempt at taking the focus off of the practice of Islam.

Learning Point

So what have we seen today? Sami interprets words the way he wants, blames his preposterous interpretations on the writer, and then accuses the writer of being ignorant and perpetuating lies!

The fact is, this is not a solitary occurrence. This is the modus operandi for many Muslims and their arguments. Many of the arguments against Christian apologists would easily be resolved if Muslims simply bothered to interpret the Christians accurately. If intentional, this can only be a distraction tactic; it serves no purpose in approaching the truth, and it simply confuses the readers who might be less than fully engaged. In the future, let's keep our eyes open for this method of argumentation and let's call it out for what it is: either poor interpretation skills or sheer distraction.

Sami Zaatari: Can a Zebra Change Its Stripes?

Sami's insults over the past day reveal something significant: Sami hasn't changed at all. I have posted offensive emails by Sami in the past, and I even took them down because Sami insisted that he had changed. Yet we can see that Sami is still Sami. Consider this collection of Sami's past emails to Christians.

Here's how Sami talks to Jochen Katz, who runs the Answering Islam website:

From: sami z
To: Jochen Katz
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:46 PM
Subject: hypocrite

hello there you nazi hypocrite. you always nag and complain when Muslims insult your false satanic faith, yet your dog of a writer shamoun recently came out calling the prophet Muhammad filthy. offcourse this exposes your double standards and how vile you missionary scum truly are, you cry foul and then you start spweing insults to the other side?

anyways since you dont like it when your faith is insulted enjoy this:

your satanic spirit is a prostitute and is what leads so many of your christian women into fornication, as you say the fake spirit leads the people, hence it seems your satanic spirit is leading your women into whoredom which is why 1 in 4 of them have STD, all of this shows your satanic spirit is a cheap prostitute.

And here's one to Sam Shamoun (which was Cc'd to half the planet).

RE: 'terror of the Lord'... and Shamoun won.. ooooooook.?
From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
Sent: Sat 1/05/08 8:02 PM To: Nadir Ahmed (nadir@examinethetruth.com); tariqroshan@gmail.com

Cc: 'sam shamoun' (sam_shmn40@hotmail.com);

hey shamoun why is that on a pc you always act hard and talk crap? yet face to face you become this little B and start begging nadir to be your friend and ending the past beef? i dont understand this...........i hope someone else on this list could explain that? is that a peace-loving Christian trait you guys have or what????????

well paul did sanction lying when you go face to face so i guess you are actually following your bible.....

Here's Sami trying to arrange some debates:

From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tue 9/04/07 11:27 PM
To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

hey there loser, you had any donuts today? did you feed some to your satanic holy spirit too? lol

anyways u loser, i havent stopped thinking of smashing ur backside in a debate, so here i am again challening you for a debate. infact 2 debates:

Is Muhammad a true Prophet

Terrorism in the Bible or the Quran

plz just say yes so i can give you a nice beat down, we can set the time sometime next month, i already have 2 debates planned for the next 2 months, making u the 3rd would be very nice.

so what do you say you silly demon possed loser? do you want to a good beating by me? dont be a chicken like the apostles in the bible. Plz

And here Sami again tries to arrange a debate:

From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
Sent: Wed 9/05/07 11:06 PM
To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

hey fat boy dont go crying to brother anas about me, if you wanna cry come cry to me, i sent you the email, why do you go crying to him you stupid obease cross worshiper?

he will smash you in a debate when you guys get it on, which is all good, and i also want to debate you too, to make it a double sized beating, you like that too dont you? double sized? double size holy spirit burger right?

so next time you and ur drunk spirit email me, instead of emailing the brother who has nothing to do with it, stupid boy you are stop acting tough and a bully cause ill smack you over the net and in real life got it? you dont scare anyone you stupid cross worshiping ASSyrian, infact some of my muslim friends once gave a good beat down to stupid ASSyrian christians who were messing with them and pushing them around, so better know your place fat boy.

so again, do you accept to debate me you fat drunk missionary style loser?

I'm still shocked that Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, Hamza, and even Shabir are all siding with Sami. They don't think it's right for Christians to blacklist someone who communicates this way. In effect, they're declaring that Christians must continue putting up with Sami's tirades. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

Sami's New Article: "David Wood, the Epitome of a Christian Islamophobic Coward"

Yesterday, I told Sami that, because of his repeated unprovoked insults and childish behavior, he has been blacklisted. Sami defends himself against my charges in his new article, "David Wood, the Epitome of a Christian Islamophobic Coward." Let's take a look at his claims.

Indeed you just have to laugh at this Islamophobic clown, for starters Wood seems to think that he's the only Christian debater out there, or that he knows every single apologist, Wood seems to think that he's the pope! What's more funny is that a debate series we had planned for April has been cancelled, why? Well we have put Wood in his place, you see as I said, Wood thought he was a hot shot, yet I know every Muslim debater he had plans to debate with, so we did the same thing that Wood did, we black-listed him, and now Wood has no one to debate at all.

I don't claim to know every Christian debater. However, here in the United States, there are only a few people willing to debate Muslims regularly or semi-regularly: James White, myself, Nabeel Qureshi, Sam Shamoun, and Mike Licona. I'm good friends with everyone on this list. James certainly isn't interested in debating Sami again. Mike wouldn't go near Sami in a million years. Nabeel has agreed to blacklist Sami, and I doubt Sam is interested in debating a man who's career is over. So, the blacklist in America is official.

What about the UK? Well, I doubt any of the debaters there who are over 20 years old will be interested in debating Sami. So, this has nothing to do with me being the pope. It has everything to do with the fact that Sami has annoyed and insulted practically everyone, and the fact that everyone is sick of his insults and childishness.

Sami says that I have no one to debate. I find this interesting, since I have a debate next month. Sami seems to assume that his "Hyde Park Dawah Group" has all the debaters in the world, and here he's wrong.

I find it absolutely shocking, however, that Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, and Hamza, are all willing to side with Sami. My reason for blacklisting Sami is that he's rude and insulting, and that he therefore has no business in public debate. I would expect Muslims to agree with me on this. Sami's reason for blacklisting me is that I blacklisted him for his atrocious behavior and lack of manners. Amazingly, Sami has convinced his fellow Muslim debaters to avoid future debates, all for the sake of siding with Nadir Ahmed's only serious competition for the title "Most Childish Debater in the World"!

In fact this Islamophobic clown even writes:

He has single-handedly ended two series of debates in March and April, and he has said that he will convince Shabir Ally never to debate me.

It seems that Wood is disappointed, what did you think Wood? Did you think you were a hot shot? Did you think that if you black-listed me you would be free to go and debate as you please? Well I think you must think again, because that's not going to happen anytime soon, indeed the April debate series have been cancelled due to your own initiation of a black-listing, which I returned in kind.

I'm disappointed, yes. I'm disappointed in Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, and Hamza for siding with you. I thought they were better than that, and that they would condemn your behavior. Alas, it seems they support you. This is tragic, but it's certainly not the end of the world. (I'll tell you what, Sami. I bet I have at least twenty debates with Muslims in 2009. Care to make a wager?)

Now some may ask why did this coward decide to black-list me? Well the explanation is almost laughable, this Islamophobe claims I am insulting and rude towards him and his religion! The irony! This Islamophobic clown who insults the Islamic religion and Muslim people none stop wants to talk about being rude and insultive?!

Sami doesn't understand the difference between being critical and being insulting. It's the difference between saying, "I'm disturbed by Muhammad's relationship with Aisha," and saying, "Muhammad was a child-molester!" The former is an honest criticism. The latter is an insult. I invite everyone to read Sami's comments here, where Nabeel posts a perfectly reasonable comment, and Sami goes on an unprovoked tirade, calling our God "homicidal" and "genocidal," calling us "marcionites" (polytheists who believe that Yahweh is evil), and in all other ways insulting our beliefs. Also pay attention to James White's comment at the end. (Note: This isn't the first time this has happened. This is a pattern with Sami, a pattern I've confronted him about in the past. He refuses to listen, which is why he's been blacklisted.)

Notice all this Islamophobe has down is expose his own hypocrisy and double standards, he feels it's okay for him and his Islamophobic friends to attack Islam and the Muslims, yet when the same is given back to them, in their own style, then they cry foul play! Indeed Wood, when I deal with cowards and hypocrites as yourself I give you the same as you give to others, however when I deal with well mannered people there is a different way in which I talk and address them, you my friend do not come under that category, you are a bigoted hater, and hence I treat you as such.

Sami says that he deals with well-mannered people kindly. Again, please look at Nabeel's comment (which was entirely well-mannered), and Sami's insulting, nasty, mocking tirade. Again, Sami doesn't understand the difference between being critical of a position and just being insulting. I'm critical of Islam. I'm rarely insulting.

He's trying to take a cheap shot at me here, trying to put me down, yet all he does is expose his own idiocy. David, let me fill you in on something, ok? Please pay attention: I AM A WRITER! Did you get that? So when you tell me to enjoy writing articles for my site, I say thank you, I love writing articles for my site, and on top of that my degree is in the field of literature and writing! Writing is my main area, debates are only a side thing for me, not the main area of my work, in point of fact Wood I do not have a debate fetish as yourself, you are the one who is debating every month, yet I only debate 2wice every 3-4 months! It is your miserable career that relies on debates, not mines, and your miserable career just got worst because the Muslims you had planned to debate, are working with me, and they will have nothing to do with you in the future.

Again, I'm disappointed that Yahya, Abdullah, Adnan, Hamza, and, according to Sami, every Muslim debater on the planet are willing to side with a 21-year-old, childish, insulting, egomaniac. But that's on them.

So what does this all say? It just shows you the level of hypocrisy within certain crusading Christians, and it also shows you that these Islamophobes are cowards, when they cannot debate or defeat you, they simply want to silence you, yet too bad for Wood he can never silence me or my work.

This is "Nadir Ahmed Syndrome" at its finest. The strategy is to insult people so much that they want nothing to do with you. Then, when people are sick of you and don't want to be in the same room with you, you declare that they're all scared to debate you! (This is coming from a man I've debated three times, a man I've promoted as a debate opponent for Nabeel, James White, and Sam Shamoun. Yes, I'm absolutely terrified of him, just like I'm terrified of Nadir Ahmed.)

Notice that, in his short article, Sami has called me an Islamophobe (multiple times), a clown (multiple times), a coward (multiple times), a hypocrite (multiple times), a bigoted hater, a crusader, and an idiot. This is in addition to all the other insults Sami has hurled in my direction over the last 18 hours. Can anyone question my motives for refusing to deal with Sami until he grows up? Can anyone honestly think that the blacklisting has anything to do with Christians being scared of him?

Sami Zaatari: Another Tragic Victim of "Nadir Ahmed Syndrome"

Those of you who know Nadir are aware of the tragic disorder that has ended his career. Nadir suffers from the first diagnosed case of "Nadir Ahmed Syndrome" (NAS). A person with NAS will exhibit the following symptoms: (1) Delusions of grandeur; (2) Annoying everyone around him; (3) Producing nonsensical websites that make people want to take a bath after a visit; (4) Insulting people for no reason at all, until no one wants to deal with him; (5) Being black-listed; (6) Calling people cowards and other names for refusing to debate. These symptoms have sucked the life out of Nadir's career, and he now seems like a ghost, haunting the halls of the debate world.

Tragically, it seems that Nadir Ahmed Syndrome is contagious. When I was in California back in September, Nadir attended my debates with Sami Zaatari. Sami was fasting, and this must have weakened his immune system. Sami contracted NAS.

Communicating with Sami in the past has been no picnic, but things have gotten much worse since he was infected by NAS. Sami has insulted me, James White, and Nabeel without provocation. When his insults and horrible behavior are pointed out to him, he says he has no clue why anyone is complaining. Sami simply isn't aware of the fact that there are consequences for his actions, and that people just aren't going to put up with a spoiled child who insults everyone and yet expects people to take him seriously.

I have tried to help Sami's career. I helped him share the stage with the famous Daniel Scot. I set up debates between Sami and James White, Nabeel Qureshi, and Sam Shamoun. Indeed, I challenge readers to find a person who has helped Sami as much as I have. And how has he repaid me? By insulting me and my beliefs in every possible way whenever the opportunity arises. In the past few hours, he has called me a coward (repeatedly) and a clown. He has called me a polytheist and has accused me of saying that the God of the Old Testament is an evil, false God. He has called my God homicidal and genocidal. He has single-handedly ended two series of debates in March and April, and he has said that he will convince Shabir Ally never to debate me. In short, Sami now has full-blown NAS. Anyone who wants proof can read the comments on this blog or visit Sami's website.

Not long ago, I predicted that Sami's career would be over within a year (I'm sure Sami remembers). I said this upon seeing the initial symptoms of NAS. It seems I was right. The fact that NAS has claimed the career of such a young man should cause all of us to pause and reflect on how we treat one another. How many more careers will NAS destroy? Let's all remember to take our vitamins--especially Vitamin H (promotes humility and honesty) and Vitamin I (promotes Integrity).