Islam: Fact Vs.Fiction – Acts 17 Lying again.

More Islamophobic LIES from “Christian Missionaries” [by Acts 17 David Wood]

Just when you thought “Christian” Fundamentalists were learning to be a tad more honest…

Right, we have already seen an overview of the history of Christian missionary dishonesty concerning Islam so it comes as no surprise to see some modern day “Christian ministries” peddling lies about Muslims.

The lies geared towards converting Muslims to Christianity are one thing but lies which have the potential to demonize Muslims and set Christians (and others) against Muslims endanger communities – especially Muslim minorities in the West.

Here we see an internet Christian ministry (David Wood of Acts 17) peddling the lie that Muslims are commanded to torture and kill Christians who FIX CHURCH ROOFS or WEAR CROSSES!!!

Now, the reasonable amongst you would pass this bloke off as misinformed at the very least – if not completely off his rocker. So why publicize this man’s lies? There are a number of reasons, here are three:

1. There are gullible folk out there who would believe such divisive lies simply because they trust “Christian evangelists” or are insincere in that they really want to believe such deceptions. This reinforces hatred and stereotypes, thus further endangering Muslims minorities

2. We need to make an example of Islamophobes – if they are peddling lies it is always nice to expose them as it makes other Islamophobes think twice – we help to nudge them to honesty and decency!

3. Lies can confuse folk so there needs to be a mopping up process.

“Christian” Missionary (David Wood) presented dangerous lies

If the video does not play, please visit:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5918502/more_islamophobic_lies_from_acts_17_apologetics_david_wood/
Video is made by the “infamous” Yahya Snow 🙂

Obvious LIES and Distortions

The Quranic Verse the Islamophobe speaks about (5:33 – see footnote 1) has nothing to do with church roofs or wearing crosses. This is an OBVIOUS LIE presented by Mr Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics.

The Verse was revealed concerning a group of people who had committed the heinous crime of murder and theft – severe highway robbery [2]

Commentaries are quoted in the comment section

This “missionary” is exposed in more ways than one

Not only do the commentaries tell us this chap is lying through his back teeth but also Islamic jurisprudence tells a similar story as it uses this Verse (5:33) as a guide to punish those who commit the crime of highway robbery [3]

Jurists may also use this verse as a guide with regards to punishing other serious crimes such as rape at gun or knife point [4]

Leaky roofs? More like leaky vessels of honesty!

I hope you can see we are talking about serious crimes which have the potential to cause fear and panic amongst communities. We are not talking about fixing leaky roofs – the missionary was simply advancing LIES!!!

So the experts (the commentators and jurists) show us this fella is telling tall tales – that’s to say he is making stuff up. How sad

As we have seen in the video, Muslim societal norms also show this dishonest man to be misleading us. [5]

The Holy Spirit

Christian evangelists claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within yet time and time again we see Christian evangelists embroiled in such outrageous episodes of misinformation such as the one above.

How do you seriously expect Muslims and other Non-Christians to believe you when your missionaries engage in lies? In this case the lies were Islamophobic and contained the potential to lead misguided folk to harass Muslim minorities in the West. Perhaps that was the design for the lie, I don’t know – ask the man who peddled the lie!

I call him to public apology and repentance

Christians PLEASE stop supporting the disingenuous and dishonest “Christian ministries”

May Allah guide us all. Ameen.

Muslims are the brothers/sisters of Jesus

Missionary Pastor converts to Islam

Discover Islam today!

Helping to nudge insincere folk amongst evangelist communities to honesty

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Footnotes
[1] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom
[Pikthal translation 5:33]

[2] Ref Commentaries: Al Wahidi, Jalalayn, Ibn Kahir, ibn Abbas. (See comment section)

[3] See Shafi fiqh, Reliance of the Traveller, read entire o15 section (Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications)
[4] See Sheikh Al-Munajjid’s material on the punishment for rape – the relevant excerpt is quoted in this article – follow the link to see the entire body of work:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Rape

[5] Not only that but Muslim societal norms militate against this man’s nonsense. In fact Muslims have even had the Pope visit wearing a CROSS – nobody tortured him. In the video I could have also shown further Muslim societal evidence. Mentioning the كنيسة القديس الياس دمشق, Saint Elias Church (Damascus-Syria) was sufficient as it was built in 1800 and has been twice renovated since but no tortured Christians could be found!

Advertisements

Is Sex With Animals Allowed in Islam?


Allegation of Bestiality against Islam is Discussed

Bestiality is not allowed in Islam but some people who are looking to demonise and degrade Muslims (and Islam) erroneously claim it is allowed in Islam.
Expert: Sheikh Ibn Hajar Haytami (1503-1566)

The expert we shall refer to is Ibn Hajar Haytami; he was a classical Muslim scholar who was an expert in Sacred Law (Islamic Law) and a well renowned authority.
This is overwhelming evidence to show the mud-slingers to be wrong.

To be even more thorough we shall offer the reader a chance to browse through (and analyze) the prominent supporting arguments used by those who claim Islam allows sex with animals (bestiality)
The Critics Spin Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Literature

As Muslims have to pray (perform Salah) five times a day whilst being in a state of purification there is a plethora of Fiqh (jurisprudence) literature on what mode of purification (i.e. bath or ablution) is required after a whole range of different occurrences. The critic tries to capitalise on this in order to support his/her malicious claim
So spinning Fiqh literature related to purification is deceptive, especially so if the one spinning the literature knows that the classical scholars considered bestiality to be a sin (i.e. not allowed in Islam)
A Typical Claim Examined

For good measure I have appended a rebuttal, by Bassam Zawadi, to a Christian who was making the argument that Islam allows sex with animals. This Christian’s (Sam Shamoun) work was characterized by the spin of Fiqh which we have touched on in this article and bizarrely enough this Christian was so desperate to see his claim stick he even resorted to making up his OWN translation of a Quranic verse. How debauched can one get! (see appendix 1)
Overall Effects of this Claim

The lack of believability factor in this argument against Islam only serves to counteract the work of the mud-slingers and thus their other claims are further doubted;
as in the case of the boy who cried “wolf”.

Article put together by Yahya Snow

“Bestiality” in this article refers to “Sexual relations between a human and an animal” [1]

Of course, those who have studied religion will find it inconceivable that any religion would allow this practice as religions are forces for conservatism. As a keen student of religion I would disbelieve any religion would allow a sexually depraved practice such as bestiality.

Sadly, Islam is a religion which is being targeted by mud slingers, a worrying side show is that amongst these mud slingers are serious evangelical Christians (see appendix 1)

In an effort to be thorough and treat the claim seriously we shall go through this hateful claim and show it to be false. The quickest way to show a claim to be false is to call in the experts. Let us simply ask an expert on Islam whether sex with animals is allowed or not.

In his list of enormities (sins) he listed bestiality (w52.1, 338-43) as a sin, thus clearly showing sex with animals is not allowed in Islam and is deemed as sinful [2]

That is unequivocally telling us those making this malicious claim against Islam are completely incorrect.

Hadith Literature Denounces Sex with Animals

In fact the experienced apologist, Bassam Zawadi, has already discussed this allegation and brought forward a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (p) which teaches us the prohibition (not allowing) sex with animals:

…Cursed is he who goes in unto (has sex with in other words in Arabic) an animal. Cursed is he who does what the people of Lot did (sodomy; the people of Sodom and Gomorah). (See appendix 1for the full Hadith which is presented by Bassam Zawadi, Sahih Al-Jami’a, page or number 5891)

Thus we see a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) warning against sex with animals and pointing it out to be a sin, thus not allowed in Islam (see appendix 1)

Summary

Here we have the classical expert on Islamic Law who teaches us sex with animals is a sin and we have a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) teaching us the same thing.

The Accusers Use Anecdotal Stories of Muslims and Falsely Impute this on Islam

You will read/hear the accuser point to stories of Muslim men committing this lewd act in Muslim countries. This will be their basis for claiming Islam allows sex with animals. This type of reasoning by the accusers (mud-slingers) is long on rhetoric but extremely lacking in rational reasoning.

Well, I could give you anecdotal stories of Muslims drinking, eating pork and gambling; would this mean Islam allows such acts?

Of course not, there are many “bad” Muslims who do not practice the religion of Islam in a full capacity and these “bad” Muslims contravene (break) many Islamic rules which a sincere Muslim is meant to observe.

To highlight the fallacious nature of the reasoning on the part of the accuser we can use the examples of Christian sex scandals amongst Christian spiritual leaders or the widespread availability of pornography in “Christian” countries.

Does this mean pornography and extramarital sex is allowed in Christianity? No, certainly not. Thus it would be silly and desperate to claim Islam allows bestiality just because you heard a story of a Muslim committing the depraved act of bestiality.

The fact remains, Islam as a religion disallows this practice.

You may see critics present literature of Fiqh which explains what a man must do in order to purify himself for prayer after committing the act of bestiality and append such material with lurid and sensational claims such as “ISLAMIC LAWS ON HOW TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS”. Of course, this is downright dishonest

As Fiqh is a science which covers all areas of life (and a whole load of possibilities) you will come across some Fiqh literature explaining what a person must do in order to purify himself after sex with an animal.

It is obvious to the reader that the Fiqh literature is not approving the act of bestiality but just giving rulings on purification after certain events.

To highlight a couple of examples we could look at Reliance of the Traveller (A Shafi Fiqh manual); in its purification section (e7.4) we learn a person must perform ablution if he/she touches the private parts of oneself or somebody else’s private parts. [3]

Of course, the Fiqh manual is not saying it is allowed for Muslims to touch other people’s privates but merely gives us rulings on purification if such an instance occurred.

Perhaps these rulings were initiated by questions from people who were tasked with the job of circumcising, doctors or mothers nursing young children.

From the same section we also note ablution is required (for prayer) if one touches the private parts of a deceased person [4]. Again, this does not mean we (as Muslims) are allowed to touch dead people’s privates.

It simply refers to purification IF such an event happened. You can imagine this ruling may have been initiated by questions from people who were tasked with washing and enshrouding bodies of the deceased.

The same applies for Fiqh literature (on purification) concerning those who commit the sin of bestiality. The Fiqh literature is not endorsing the act but simply giving us the mode of purification if somebody did commit this depraved act. (see appendix 1)

You can imagine purification rulings in Fiqh literature related to the sin of bestiality came about because somebody was caught doing such a deed (or rumours of such deeds were abound at the time of the jurist) and people asked regarding the purification route the one who committed the act must take in order to perform Salah (prayer)

Beware of the Forgeries, Spin and Other Malpractice

The critics bring forward a Shia leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, and claim he allowed this practice. His “quotes” are clouded with doubt.

However, this Shia leader did not approve of sex with animals. He was simply giving his opinion related to purification with regards to the crime of bestiality and has become the victim of the spin we have already discussed.

In any case when he spoke of such an act (hypothetically) he appended the words “Allah protect him from it” thus indicating he did not approve of such an action.

“If a man – Allah protect him from it! – fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary” [5]

As for many quotes attributed to him, on the internet, there is a huge deal of suspicion surrounding the translations and whether they are forgeries or not. An alleged fourth edition of his Tahrir al Wasilah is being denied to ever exist.

For the record, in the interest of fairness, this man (Khomeini) did not appear to approve of bestiality so it would be unfair to accuse him of allowing such an act.

As a side note: any quotations of Khomeini used as a polemic against Islam should just be shrugged off as most Muslims (roughly 90%) do not view him with any authority whatsoever. This seems to be a common ploy used by insincere types against Islam; they use quotations from people who are unaccepted or on the fringe, all the while being contradicted by accepted authorities.

Bogus Argument: There is No Set Punishment in Islam for Bestiality

The other “supporting” material the accuser will use is the claim that Islam does not have a defined punishment for those who have sex with animals. This is an argument which is built on misconception and thrives on fertile imaginations.

It is spin based on a misconception; “The major myth of many people is that judges in Islamic nations have fixed punishments for all crimes. In reality the judges have much greater flexibility than judges under common law.” [6]

Just because a fixed punishment for this sin is not set it does not mean it is allowed in Islam or that it goes unpunished. In fact, it has been clearly shown the act is not allowed in Islam, thus the judge will decide on the punishment for somebody proven to have committed the degrading act of bestiality.

References

[1] Free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bestiality

[2] Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] The Little Green Book at the Prophet of Doom, (doubts concerning authenticity of translations).

[6] http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

Appendices

Appendix 1

Bassam Zawadi refutes the “bestiality” argument by a Christian evangelist:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/sexual_ethics.htm

Appendix 2

Interesting reading about Sweden and zoophiles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece