Author: Lizzie Schofield

Lizzie Schofield is an evangelist with DCCI Ministries.

Who needs blasphemy laws anyway?

Twitter message

There have been two victories for freedom of speech recently. The first, on 28th October, was when Ireland voted in a referendum to scrap its blasphemy laws. Stephen Fry was reported by a member of the public in 2015 for the following comments:

“Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded stupid god who creates a world so full of injustice and pain?” the actor said.”The god that created this universe, if it was created by a god, is quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac, totally selfish.”

The reaction from the political establishment was embarrassment swiftly followed by legislative reform. How ridiculous that this stuff is still on the statute book, said the press.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, where blasphemy is a capital offence and blasphemy laws are defended by its UK educated Prime Minister,  Asia Bibi was finally freed after 8 years on death row. After some grubby bargaining with the political parties who wanted her dead, it’s hoped she has finally been allowed to leave the country – the latest news is still unclear.

But unlike Stephen Fry’s opinions, Western media outlets don’t like to repeat what Bibi actually said. The BBC reports coyly “she made three offensive comments about the Prophet Muhammad.”  Sky News says she was imprisoned “over allegations she insulted Islam’s Prophet Muhammad”. Mohammed Hanif in the New York Times went further still:

“We can never know what she may or may not have said because repeating blasphemy is also blasphemy, and writing it down may be even greater blasphemy. So let’s not go there….”

Surprise, surprise, the same newspaper decided to publish Stephen’s comments in full! Why this lack of editorial consistency? I wonder if the violent protests  across the country, calling for the assassination of Bibi and the judges who acquitted her had anything to do with it.

So what exactly did Asia say that everyone is too shy to report? Asia recounts answering her neighbour, who had just referred to Jesus as a “bastard”, with the words “I believe in my religion and in Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Muhammed ever do to save mankind?” Probably one of the most prescient, probing, relevant questions ever asked. And not even blasphemous -her neighbour was blasphemous. Either way – blasphemy should never be a criminal offence. But who cares? A blasphemy law is redundant when the mainstream media is sharia compliant by choice.

Indeed Twitter’s sharia-compliance officers charged us with ‘hateful conduct’, after we tweeted Sky News on the issue of grooming gangs:

“Religion of Islam has lots to do with this. Qur’an supports their actions. Role model of Muslims is Muhammad and his actions support the actions of grooming gangs (should be called ‘rape gangs’.” (You can probably tell which one of us wrote that.)

Clearly Twitter can’t tell the difference between ‘hateful conduct’ and ‘uncomfortable facts.’ But then, this is the organisation that accepted a paid  ad promoting female genital mutilation. (You can watch our response to Twitter  here, and you can read our article where we link the issue of rape gangs with Islamic teaching here.)

But at least the European Court of Human Rights is on the side of free speech – right? Wrong. The ECHR thinks free speech is less important than “the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved.” So if people feel on religious grounds, that having sex with 9 year old child is acceptable (because their prophet did so) their religious feelings take precedence over proper discussion of their prophet’s behaviour.  All at a time when “child marriage has become one of the most pervasive and enduring forms of sexual exploitation of young girls in the Middle East and North Africa,” according to this  white paper on Child Marriage in the Middle East and North Africa.  (Click here for the full article by Jules Gomes.)  Likewise Asia Bibi won’t be offered asylum in Britain, according to one source, due to ‘security concerns and unrest in certain sections of the community.’ Yet again Muslim feelings trump the morally right thing to do.

Tomorrow is Remembrance Sunday. I wonder what the soldiers who laid down their lives would make of the freedoms they fought for being discarded so cheaply? But bemoaning it doesn’t help. Nor does silence. The church needs to find her voice again, and be firm and be courageous. We must “speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:9); we must preach the Gospel in season and out of season (2 Tim 4:2), and “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5), especially as it gets more costly. But we can do with joy and hope, with Jesus as our victorious King.

‘I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.’ (John 16:33)

Find us on YouTube and Facebook.

 

Muhammad is not a prophet – 10 reasons (2)

 

Swearing in ceremony

Reason 2: Muhammad broke his oaths for immediate sexual gratification

“O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.” Sura 66:1-2

This is one of those verses from the clear, detailed, well-explained Qur’an that is impossible to explain without the ahadith and the tafsirs to help us. What is it that Allah has made lawful to Muhammad? What was his oath that Allah released him from?

There are two possible contexts to the revelation. The first is that that Aisha was jealous of Muhammad for staying too long drinking honey at Zainab’s place, so she incited his other wives against him to ask if he had been drinking maghafir – a kind of sweet sap with a strong smell – implying “you smell, Muhammad.” Muhammad said, no, I’ve just been drinking honey, but to keep you happy, I promise I won’t drink it again. This is in Ibn Kathir. It’s also referred to in Bukhari and Muslim.

The other context, and the more popular among the classical tafsir writers, is the story of Mary the Copt. The Qur’anic commentators Al-Jalalyn (Tabari, Al-Badawi and Sunan an-Nisai as well) all refer to this story, as does Ibn Kathir, who – according to this Muslim – said the honey story was a “questionable” context of revelation for these verses. And if this Muslim is to be believed, the story of Mary the Copt has been expunged from the on-line version of his tafsir. If true, then why? Probably because it’s so embarrassing to the prophet of Islam.

The story goes like this. Muhammad used to visit his wives in turn; when it was Hafsa’s turn, he didn’t find her at home. Rather than wait for her, he decided to have sex with with his slave girl, Mary the Copt – a present to Muhammad from al-Muqawqis, the ruler of Egypt after the treaty of al-Hudaybiyah – in Hafsa’s bed. Hafsa is upset by this, after which Muhammad agrees to make Mary “unlawful” for him. Here is Al-Jalalyn’s tafsir:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa who had been away but who upon returning and finding out became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying ‘She is unlawful for me!’ seeking by making her unlawful for you to please your wives? And God is Forgiving Merciful having forgiven you this prohibition.

Then, conveniently, Muhammad receives Sura 66:1.

“O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.” Sura 66:1-2

In other words, go ahead Muhammad: it doesn’t matter that Hafsa is upset, your instant sexual gratification is more important than your wives’ feelings. And if they complain, what does Sura 66:5 say?

“It may be if he divorced you that his Lord will give him instead of you, better wives than you.”

Quite apart from the murky light it sheds on Muhammad, what are ordinary Muslims to make of it? Why are these verses in the Qur’an, Allah’s eternal speech? How are they to apply these verses to their lives, given that Muhammad is their ‘exalted pattern of conduct’?

Muhammad’s sexual morality is a subject for another post, as is the convenience of his revelations, but for now let’s compare Allah’s casual rescinding of Muhammad’s oath with what the Bible says. The Old Testament affirms that making a vow to the LORD is a serious act, not to be taken lightly:

If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth. (Deu 23:21-23)

YHWH says it’s better not to make the vow at all if you don’t think you can keep it:

When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill your vow. It is better not to vow than to make a vow and not fulfill it. (Ecclesiastes 5:4-5-6)

Jesus goes further in Matthew 5:33-37:

“Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Allah is not a god of his word and Muhammad not a man of his word, in flagrant disobedience to the previous Scriptures which the Qur’an claims to confirm (Sura 3:3, 4:136, 5:48, 5:68, 29:46).

YHWH of the Bible is a God of His word – He does what He says He will do. Jesus keeps His word to His Father and His followers, even to the point of sacrificing Himself on the Cross for the sake of a world that hated Him. Nothing self-gratifying about that.

Is Allah Muhammad’s cuddly teddy bear?

Hatun and Daniel discuss the context of revelation for Sura 66:1-5, the story of Mary the Copt – and how Allah uses Umar to bring the revelation instead of Muhammad.

Find us on YouTube.

Muhammad is not a prophet – 10 reasons (1)

Temptation of Christ

This is the start of our series on why Muhammad is not a prophet of God, comparing him with the Lord Jesus Christ, to help Muslims see Him as God Incarnate, LORD, True Prophet, Priest and King – the only One truly worthy of their worship and allegiance.

Reason 1: Muhammad’s revelations did not come from Allah directly, but through an angel whom he mistook for Satan.

Muslims don’t question that it was Allah speaking to Muhammad through Jibril (Gabriel.) But why doesn’t Muhammad speak with Allah directly? Why does Allah choose to communicate through an angel, a created being? Is he unwilling or unable to talk to Muhammad this way? But more importantly – why did Allah leave room for ambiguity, for the possibility that another angelic being might pretend to be Jibril, and pass on pretend messages from Allah? Except this is precisely what happened.

Islamic Tradition (in numerous, authoritative sources) records Muhammad’s anxiety about offending the pagan Meccans with his message of pure monotheism. Tempted and in weakness, he needed a revelation that would win them over. As he was reciting Sura An Najm, Satan gave him words to say (in bold):

Have ye seen Lat and ‘Uzza, And another, the third (goddess), Manat? [These are the high-flying ones, whose intercession is to be hoped for!] Sura 53:19.

When the Meccans heard these affirmations of their gods, they were delighted and prostrated in prayer alongside the Muslims. Jibril pointed out Muhammad’s mistake; Muhammad was grieved, but comforted by Allah. He then received these verses by way of replacement, condemning the Meccan deities as worthless:

What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a division most unfair! these are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire!- Even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord! [Sura 53:21-23]

Note the Biblical punishment for so-called prophets who lead people away from worshipping the true God into idolatry – they are to be put to death.

“If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, “Let us follow other gods” (whom you have not known) “and let us serve them,” you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. … But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord you God … So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” Deut 13:1-5

As the Qur’an claims to confirm the Bible (Sura 3:3, 4:136, 5:46-7, 68, 29:46), then by its own logic, Muhammad should have been put to death as a false prophet. Instead, Allah sends Muhammad another verse by way of comfort:

“Never did we send an apostle or a prophet before you but when he wished Satan cast a suggestion into his wish” as far as the words “Knowing, Wise” (Sura 22:51)

In other words, don’t worry about it Muhammad, every prophet before you has had this hearing-from-Satan problem. But this contradicts Islamic tradition, which states that there was one man who Satan had not touched – Jesus!

Narrated Said bin Al-Musaiyab:
Abu Huraira said, “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘There is none born among the off-spring of Adam, but Satan touches it. A child therefore, cries loudly at the time of birth because of the touch of Satan, except Mary and her Child.” Then Abu Huraira recited: “And I seek refuge with You for her and for her offspring from the outcast Satan” (3.36) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 641; see also Volume 4, Book 54, Number 506)

Did Jesus’ speak God’s words and only God’s words?

Now let’s consider Jesus’ interactions with Satan and whether He in fact spoke God’s words and only God’s words.

Jesus’ first interaction with Satan is during His temptation in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-14.) On each occasion, Jesus opposes him, not falling for any of his tricks, before dismissing him – “away from me Satan! For it is written: worship the Lord your God and serve him only” (Matthew 4:9)

When Peter tries to dissuade him from the Cross, Jesus immediately recognises the voice of the enemy – “Get behind me Satan! he said. “You do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men.” (Mark 8:33)

As the incarnate Son of God, in one sense, all Jesus’ words are God’s words – He never required an angelic mediator. The Old Testament prophets didn’t either; note the frequency of the expression “the LORD spoke”, “and God said” etc. David, for example, “enquired of the LORD.” But are Jesus’ words always in perfect harmony with the Father’s? Yes.

“When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own, but speak just what the Father has taught me.” John 8:27

“Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.” John 8:55

Jesus even tells his hearers that his claim to speak from the Father is testable:

“Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” John 7:17

Muslims, are you willing to test Jesus claim? But it gets better. Jesus not only spoke God’s words and only God’s words – he destroyed Satan’s power as well! Colossians 2:15:

“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[a] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the [demonic] powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.“

Conclusion

Muhammad needed an angelic mediator to communicate with Allah -Jesus was God Incarnate, with no need for a mediator to communicate with His Father. Muhammad gave into Satan’s temptation, who was able to use him as his mouthpiece- Jesus never gave into temptation. For speaking lies, the Bible condemns Muhammad as a false prophet -the Qur’an and Islamic tradition confirm Jesus was sinless. Muhammad is powerless to resist Satan – Jesus defeated the power of Satan at the Cross.

Who are you following and why? Change your mind? Let us know in the comments section.

Thank you to Answering Islam, Sam Shamoun, Silas.

Find us on YouTube

Was Aisha really ready for marriage?

Was Aisha really physically, emotionally and spiritually ready to be married to Muhammad?

‘A’isha reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)

Find us on YouTube

“Jesus sinned” says Muslim. Allah disagrees!

Godwin and Daniel discuss with “John Rambo” – an aggressive member of the Islamic da’wah team – over whether Jesus was a sinner. John Rambo says yes – Islamic teaching says NO.

Find us on YouTube