The legendary Father Botros has done some great work on Mohammed's sexual deviancy. Unfortunately, as soon as his videos go up on youtube, they are taken down by the Jihadi Aloha Snackbar fanbase.

The best I can give you is the summaries of the satellite program on Jihad Watch. If I can find the actual programs, I will put the links here.

It's a Four Part series so far.

PART I
Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"

Botros.jpg

Life TV’s Father Zakaria Botros recently ran a show dedicated to discussing the question of morality and how it is—or should be—one of the hallmarks of “prophethood.” At the start, he posed the focal question of the show: “Was Muhammad the prophet a moral man—the most upright man, worthy of being emulated by the world?”

He opened the show by relying on an Ibn Taymiyya quote, which evaluated the signs of prophethood. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” a contemporary of Muhammad. Taymiyya concluded that many of these so-called prophets are, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title.

Being that this is the first of several episodes devoted to examining the concepts of morality and prophethood (with the notion that the former reinforces the latter), the theme for this particular episode was “purity” (tahara): "Was Muhammad a 'pure' man?"—in this context, a question concerning his sexual mores (or lack thereof).

After the preliminaries, Botros looked at the camera and gave a stern warning: “This episode is for adults only! I am going to discuss many things that make me blush for shame, so please: have the women and children leave the room.”

He then asked Muslims watching to keep in mind the question “Is this the prophet I follow?” as he delineated some of Muhammad’s sexual habits.

First, from the Koran, Botros read verses unequivocally stating that Muhammad is the paragon of all virtue and morality, such as “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality [68: 4].” He further quoted the ulema, such as Ibn Kathir, all insisting that Muhammad was the “Noblest of all humanity, and the greatest of prophets.”

Botros and his ex-Muslim cohost—the priest had insisted that it be a man for this particular show, lest he be too ashamed to delineate Muhammad’s sexual habits—discussed Koran 4:3, which “limits” a Muslim's wives to four, plus “what your right hands possess,” that is, slave-girls.

That was apparently not good enough for Muhammad, asserted Botros; an entire verse had to be “revealed” justifying more women for him (Koran 33:50). In fact, Father Botros has carefully compiled a list of all the women—66 are known—to have had sexual relations with Muhammad.

Botros said that was only normal: according to Sirat Al-Halabi, Muhammad can have a woman no matter what, even against her will; and if Muhammad desired a married woman, her husband would have had to divorce her. According to Ibn Sa’ad, who wrote another authoritative biographical account of Muhammad, “The prophet did not die till all women were permitted him” (see Kitab Al Tabaqat Al Kubra, v.8, 194).

The co-host, rather abruptly, interjected – “What of all those rumors that Muhammad exhibited homosexual tendencies?”

Botros dropped his face in his hands and mumbled, “So you still insist we discuss that?” The co-host was adamant, saying it was for Muslims’ own good to know everything.

Thus Botros, after profusely apologizing to his Muslim viewers, saying how embarrassing this was for him, declared: “Look! We’re merely readers here, bringing up what we have read in Islam’s own books! If Muslims don't like it, they should go and burn these books.”

The first anecdote discussed by the priest revolved around a hadith that, while some ulema say is “weak,” is, nonetheless according to Botros, present in 44 Islamic books—including some highly respected collections, such as Sunan Bayhaqi and Al Halabi.

According to this hadith, a man named Zahir, who used to declare that “the prophet loves me,” said that one day Muhammad crept unawares behind him and put him in a bear-hug. Zahir, alarmed, yelled, “Get off me!” After turning his head and discovering that it was Muhammad, he stopped struggling and proceeded to “push his back into the prophet’s chest—prayers and blessings upon him."

Another curious hadith contained in Sunan Bayhaqi and which traces to Sunan Abu Dawud (one of the six canonical hadith collections), has Muhammad lifting up his shirt for a man who proceeded to kiss his entire torso, “from his bellybutton to his armpits.”

Botros looked casually at the camera and said, “Imagine if the sheikh of Al Azhar [nearest Muslim equivalent to the pope] went around lifting his shirt for men to kiss his torso” (he proceeded to make smacking kissing noises, for effect).

Said the co-host: “Surely there’s more?”

Botros: “Indeed there is. No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls"...

[Stay tuned for part II of "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024363.php

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet," Part II

This being the continuation of Fr. Botros' examination of Muhammad's sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I. Last we left the priest and his co-host, the former noted that, "No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”

Botros proceeded to read aloud from various sources, such as a hadith relayed by Abu Hurreira (deemed an extremely reliable narrator), where Muhammad sucked on the tongues of his cousin (and future caliph) Ali’s two boys, Hassan and Hussein—they of revered Shia memory.

Next he read a hadith of Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s 'activities' with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”

With an extremely disgusted look on his face, Botros turned towards the camera and said: “Dear lady, imagine, for a moment, coming home to find your husband sucking on your daughter’s tongue? What would you do? It’s even worse: it’s your prophet—the most “morally upright” man, a man to be emulated by the world! A man who on record used to go around sucking the tongues of his wives, his daughters, and young boys: Are these the activities of the man described in the Koran as being the pinnacle of moral perfection?”

Cohost: “More!”

“Muhammad would not sleep until he kissed his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom [the priest provided the appropriate sources]. Dear lady! what would you say to your husband sleeping with his face in your daughter’s breast—is that the height of morality?!”

At this point, Fr Botros, looking downcast, began apologizing profusely, saying he could only imagine how all these anecdotes must be troubling for Muslims, to which the co-host reassured him: “It’s not your fault, father, but rather the fault of those Muslims recording these vile incidences. Either way: Muslims must know. More please.”

Botros continued reading more revealing hadiths, including one from the Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”

Another hadith goes on to say that Muhammad ended up dying before this particular girl reached marriage age, to which the by now vexed priest, unable to contain himself, exclaimed, “Awwww! Poor prophet! He missed one!”

Botros then told viewers to keep this last hadith in mind, for “context,” as he read another hadith from the Sunan of Bin Said, which records Muhammad saying “I hugged so-and-so when she was a child and found that I greatly desired her.”

“What prophet is this you follow?!” cried the outraged Coptic priest. “Where is his morality? This is the man that Muslims follow slavishly? Use your minds!”

It was late in the night, yet Fr Botros was not done cataloging his findings regarding the prophet’s “sexual” habits (these shows are an hour and a half long). So, when he moved on to a hadith depicting Muhammad lying next to a dead woman in her grave, as well as pointing to hadith categories called “intercourse with a dead woman,” I happily turned off the satellite and called it a night—till this moment, as I am (somewhat reluctantly) revisiting my notes to prepare this report.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024389.php

Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"

Part III

This being the continuation of Fr Zakaria Botros’ examination of Muhammad's sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I and Part II.

Last we left the Coptic priest, he was reading from hadith reports stating that the prophet of Islam “admired” a 2-3 year old girl (saying that he hoped to live long enough to make her his wife), and “laid” in the grave with a dead woman.

In this episode, he began with the prophet’s “transvestite” tendencies. He read from several hadiths, including Sahih Bukhari—Fr Botros claims that there are no less than 32 different references to this phenomenon in Islam’s books—wherein Muhammad often laid in bed dressed in women’s clothes, specifically his child-bride Aisha’s.

[These are some hadiths I commend to you Abu, I expect you to wear more women's clothes from now on.]

Fr. Botros: “Perhaps Muslims think that he only dressed in Aisha’s clothes? Being that she was his “favorite,” perhaps after being intimate with her, he would merely lay in bed with her clothes?” (Here the priest put his face in his hands lamenting that he had to talk of such shameful things.)

Then he offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

Fr Botros next moved on to some commentaries in the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. He read one anecdote where Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”—in the nude. Elsewhere, Qurtubi concludes that, “the prophet—prayers and blessings upon him—was constantly preoccupied with women.”

Fr Botros to Muslims: “So this is your prophet—the most morally upright man? Instead of being preoccupied with, say, prayer or good deeds, he was preoccupied with women?”

He next read from Faid al-Qabir (3/371), wherein Muhammad is on record saying, “My greatest loves are women and perfume: the hungry is satisfied after eating, but I never have enough of women.” Another hadith: “I can hold back from food and drink—but not from women.” After reading these hadiths, Fr Botros would just look at the screen in silence, shaking his head.

He next read an interesting narrative (contained in Umdat al-Qari and Faid al-Qabir). Reportedly, Allah sent Gabriel with some sort of celestial food (called al-kofid) to Muhammad, commanding the latter to “Eat!”—identical to when Gabriel came to Muhammad saying “Read!” (i.e., iqra, the word for Koran). The report goes on to quote Muhammad saying that the food given to him “gave me the sexual potency of 40 heavenly men.” Fr Botros next read from the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, where it says that the “heavenly man” has the sexual potency of 100 mortal men.

Wondered the priest: “So, doing the math, 40x100, we can conclude that Muhammad, whenever he ate his heavenly aphrodisiac, had the sexual potency of 4000 men? Really, O umma, is this the claim to fame of your prophet—that he was a raving sex maniac?" Then, less seriously, "Imagine the surprise when Westerners find out that, once again, it was Muhammad who first discovered Viagra!”

Zakaria Botros went on to read from more sources, such as Sunan al-Nisa’i, wherein Muhammad used to in a single night "visit" all his women, without washing in between. Asked the priest: “Why even record such obscene and embarrassing things?"

Perhaps most entertaining, Fr Botros spent some time analyzing an anecdote recorded in Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya we al-Nihaya. Here is a translation for this lengthy account:

After conquering the Jews of Khaybar, and plundering their belongings, among other things, a donkey fell into the lot of the prophet, who proceeded to ask the donkey: “What is your name?"

The donkey answered, "Yazid Ibn Shihab. Allah had brought forth from my ancestry 60 donkeys, none of whom were ridden on except by prophets. None of the descendants of my grandfather remain but me, and none of the prophets remain but you and I expected you to ride me. Before you, I belonged to a Jewish man, whom I caused to stumble and fall frequently so he used to kick my stomach and beat my back."

Here, chuckling, the priest added, “a taqiyya-practicing donkey!” He continued reading, "The prophet – may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him – said to him, ‘I will call you Ya’foor. O Ya’foor!’ Ya’foor replied, ‘I obey.’ The prophet asked, ‘Do you lust after females?’ The donkey replied, ‘No!’"

Cried the priest: “Even the donkey blushed for shame concerning your prophet’s over-sexed inquiries! Here we have what is supposed to be a miracle—a talking donkey; and of all things to communicate to this animal, your prophet’s most urgent question was whether the donkey lusts after females?”

Next, reading from Sahih Bukhari (5/2012), Fr Botros relayed an account where Muhammad went into the house of a young woman named Umaima bint Nua’m and commanded her to “Give yourself to me!” The woman responded, “Shall a queen give herself to the rabble?" Shaking his fist, Muhammad threatened her, and then sent her off to her parents.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024617.php

Zakaria Botros: “You see, people, even back then, in those dark ages, there were still people who had principles, who did not give way to threats and coercion. However, the real question here is, why was Muhammad contradicting the commandments of his own Koran—“if a believing woman gives herself to the prophet” (33:50)—trying to coerce this young lady?”

Finally, with a most distasteful look on his face, the priest read from a hadith in al-Siyuti (6/395), where Muhammad asserts that, “In heaven, Mary mother of Jesus, will be one of my wives.”

“Please, O prophet,” quoth the Coptic Orthodox priest, “do not implicate our saints with your filthy practices…”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024617.php

This being the continuation of Fr Zakaria Botros’ examination of Muhammad's sexual morality (or lack thereof). See here for Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Once again, at the start of the show, Fr Botros read from a famous Ibn Taymiyya excerpt regarding how to differentiate between real and false prophets. Taymiyya asserted that there are many false-prophets, such as Musailima “the Liar,” that many of these so-called prophets were, in fact, “possessed,” and that the only way to determine the authenticity of any prophet is by examining his biography (sira) and deeds, and see if he be found worthy of the title of prophet.

After reading the lengthy quote, Fr Botros concluded with a, “Good for you, Ibn Taymiyya! You at least knew this much.”

The viewers were then given the usual warning: “This show is for adults only! Young ladies and children should leave now.” He then exhorted the viewers to keep in mind as he reads about Muhammad that “this is the prophet you follow. Bear this in mind, O you Muslim!”

Fr Botros then lamented how for 1400 years barriers have been erected around Muhammad so no one—Muslim or infidel—could critique his life: “But the time has come, my friends; the barrier is broken!”

Next he recapped the past three episodes dealing with Muhammad’s sexual habits—including (but not limited to) his sucking the tongues of boys and girls, kissing the breasts of his daughter Fatima, "lusting" after 2-3 year-old girls, laying with a dead woman, homosexual inclinations, receiving revelations while dressed in women’s clothing, copulating with nine women in a row without washing in between (and then bragging about it), greeting people while in the nude, and proclaiming that he will copulate with Mary the mother of Jesus in heaven. (To this latter one, the priest, with a disgusted look on his face, said, “Come on, guy! Get real.”)

He began this episode by saying that no less than 34 books, including the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi and Sahih Muslim, record that Muhammad used to “fondle”—Botros scowled at the screen—“kiss and have sex while fasting, though he forbade others from doing so.”

Said the host: “Interesting. But we know that prophets have special dispensations: Do you have anything more explicit?”

Fr Botros: “Fine. How’s this: the prophet used to visit [copulate with] his women when they were menstruating -- so sorry for this disgusting topic! Forgive me, people!”

He then pointed out that the main problem with this is that the Koran (2:222)—“Muhammad’s own words,” as he put it—forbade Muslims from going near menstruating women.

He went on to quote from a number of hadiths affirming that Muhammad freely had sex with menstruating women, including from Sahih Bukhari (v.5, p. 350), which said that if Muhammad desired a menstruating woman, he placed a sheet around her and proceeded with his business, to which the priest cried:

“Come on man! Couldn’t you find another one of your 66 women? It just had to be the one menstruating?”

Then, earnestly looking into the camera: “But seriously, people: are you not ashamed of these things? I know I am—just mentioning them. And this is your ‘prophet’—the ‘exemplary man’?”

He then read a hadith, narrated by Aisha, and contained in the canonical six, wherein the prophet’s young wife recounted how, whenever she was menstruating, if the prophet “wanted her,” he used to “command” her to have sex with him, to which the priest exclaimed—“Commanded! This is rape! Who is this character you are following?”

He read from a number of other hadiths, all demonstrative of Muhammad’s sexual proclivities toward menstruating women—which the Koran forbids—adding, “People, if this is how the ‘prophet of God’ behaves, what can we expect from the average man?”

Asked the host: “Well, could other men behave this way?”

Fr Botros: “Sure, the prophet was always generous to his followers, giving them ways out. According to eight hadith compilations, Ibn Abbas relayed that Muhammad said if a man cannot help himself and copulates with his menstruating wife, all he has to do is pay one dinar in atonement; if he sleeps with her towards the end of her cycle, when she isn’t bleeding as much, he need only pay half a dinar—a discount!" [saying “discount” in English and laughing].

Host: “As you pointed out, since Muhammad had so many women, why did he even feel the need to resort to the ones that were menstruating?”

Fr Botros: “Ahhhh. I see you are wisely connecting the dots. The simple reason, my friend, is that Muhammad used to like smelling”—here he went sniff, sniff—“menstruation blood.” He then quoted from al-Siyuti, where Aisha relayed that Muhammad said to her “Come here,” to which she replied, “But I am menstruating, O prophet of God.” So he said “Expose your thighs”; she did so and “he proceeded to lay his cheek and chest on her thighs.”

Fr Botros: “Help me people! How can such perverse behavior come from a prophet—the ‘greatest role model’?”

He then read a Sahih Bukhari hadith (v.6, p.2744) relayed by Aisha where she said that, while menstruating, the prophet used to lay his head on her thighs and recite the Koran.

Fr Botros: “While reciting the Koran!!”

www.jihadwatch.org

Part IV - Cont.

Next he read from Ahkam al-Koran (v.3, p.444) where a woman declared that she used to cup water from a well that had, not just menstruation blood, but dog flesh, and all manner of filth, and give Muhammad to drink.

Fr Botros: “What happened to Koran 2:222?! Yet the ‘seal of the prophets’ can drink such foul water?"

Then, while shaking his head with eyes downcast: "O Muhammad, Muhammad, Muhammad..."

[Stay tuned for part V of "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet"]


Not yet given individual URL, main site is here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1’
Coptic priest Zakaria Botros fights fire with fire.

By Raymond Ibrahim

Though he is little known in the West, Coptic priest Zakaria Botros — named Islam’s “Public Enemy #1” by the Arabic newspaper, al-Insan al-Jadid — has been making waves in the Islamic world. Along with fellow missionaries — mostly Muslim converts — he appears frequently on the Arabic channel al-Hayat (i.e., “Life TV”). There, he addresses controversial topics of theological significance — free from the censorship imposed by Islamic authorities or self-imposed through fear of the zealous mobs who fulminated against the infamous cartoons of Mohammed. Botros’s excurses on little-known but embarrassing aspects of Islamic law and tradition have become a thorn in the side of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East.

Botros is an unusual figure onscreen: robed, with a huge cross around his neck, he sits with both the Koran and the Bible in easy reach. Egypt’s Copts — members of one of the oldest Christian communities in the Middle East — have in many respects come to personify the demeaning Islamic institution of “dhimmitude” (which demands submissiveness from non-Muslims, in accordance with Koran 9:29). But the fiery Botros does not submit, and minces no words. He has famously made of Islam  “ten demands” whose radical nature he uses to highlight Islam’s own radical demands on non-Muslims.

The result? Mass conversions to Christianity — if clandestine ones. The very public conversion of high-profile Italian journalist Magdi Allam — who was baptized by Pope Benedict in Rome on Saturday — is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, Islamic cleric Ahmad al-Qatani stated on al-Jazeera TV a while back that some six million Muslims convert to Christianity annually, many of them persuaded by Botros’s public ministry. More recently, al-Jazeera noted Life TV’s “unprecedented evangelical raid” on the Muslim world. Several factors account for the Botros phenomenon.

First, the new media — particularly satellite TV and the Internet (the main conduits for Life TV) — have made it possible for questions about Islam to be made public without fear of reprisal. It is unprecedented to hear Muslims from around the Islamic world — even from Saudi Arabia, where imported Bibles are confiscated and burned — call into the show to argue with Botros and his colleagues, and sometimes, to accept Christ.

Secondly, Botros’s broadcasts are in Arabic — the language of some 200 million people, most of them Muslim. While several Western writers have published persuasive critiques of Islam, their arguments go largely unnoticed in the Islamic world. Botros’s mastery of classical Arabic not only allows him to reach a broader audience, it enables him to delve deeply into the voluminous Arabic literature — much of it untapped by Western writers who rely on translations — and so report to the average Muslim on the discrepancies and affronts to moral common sense found within this vast corpus.

A third reason for Botros’s success is that his polemical technique has proven irrefutable. Each of his episodes has a theme — from the pressing to the esoteric — often expressed as a question (e.g., “Is jihad an obligation for all Muslims?”; “Are women inferior to men in Islam?”; “Did Mohammed say that adulterous female monkeys should be stoned?” “Is drinking the urine of prophets salutary according to sharia?”). To answer the question, Botros meticulously quotes — always careful to give sources and reference numbers — from authoritative Islamic texts on the subject, starting from the Koran; then from the canonical sayings of the prophet — the Hadith; and finally from the words of prominent Muslim theologians past and present — the illustrious ulema.

Typically, Botros’s presentation of the Islamic material is sufficiently detailed that the controversial topic is shown to be an airtight aspect of Islam. Yet, however convincing his proofs, Botros does not flatly conclude that, say, universal jihad or female inferiority are basic tenets of Islam. He treats the question as still open — and humbly invites the ulema, the revered articulators of sharia law, to respond and show the error in his methodology. He does demand, however, that their response be based on “al-dalil we al-burhan,” — “evidence and proof,” one of his frequent refrains — not shout-downs or sophistry.

More often than not, the response from the ulema is deafening silence — which has only made Botros and Life TV more enticing to Muslim viewers. The ulema who have publicly addressed Botros’s conclusions often find themselves forced to agree with him — which has led to some amusing (and embarrassing) moments on live Arabic TV.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTUwY2QyNjA0NjcwMjExMzI2ZmJiZTEzN2U1YjYyZjE

Botros spent three years bringing to broad public attention a scandalous — and authentic — hadith stating that women should “breastfeed” strange men with whom they must spend any amount of time. A leading hadith scholar, Abd al-Muhdi, was confronted with this issue on the live talk show of popular Arabic host Hala Sirhan. Opting to be truthful, al-Muhdi confirmed that going through the motions of breastfeeding adult males is, according to sharia, a legitimate way of making married women “forbidden” to the men with whom they are forced into contact — the logic being that, by being “breastfed,” the men become like “sons” to the women and therefore can no longer have sexual designs on them.

To make matters worse, Ezzat Atiyya, head of the Hadith department at al-Azhar University — Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution — went so far as to issue a fatwa legitimatizing “Rida’ al-Kibir” (sharia’s term for “breastfeeding the adult”), which prompted such outrage in the Islamic world that it was subsequently recanted.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTUwY2QyNjA0NjcwMjExMzI2ZmJiZTEzN2U1YjYyZjE=&w=MQ==

[Tough break there Abu, I bet you were raring to go to get some adult breastfeeding happening, and then they went and revoked the fatwa for you. Pity.]

Just in case it's not clear - I DONT respect your religion, and I don't care if you're offended. Islam is dangerous pernicious nonsense that would not stand even mild scrutiny by anyone rational, however it survives like any dictatorship by being backed with extreme violence to prevent dissent. The information age might be its biggest threat yet.

For those who believe in god, God Bless Father Botros, may he be kept safe.

Didn't you already post this in the spirituality forum a ew months ago?

You're really getting desperate now, recycling, recycling...  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2009 at 11:05am:

Didn't you already post this in the spirituality forum a ew months ago? You're really getting desperate now, recycling, recycling...  ;D

Only an article about Part I - this includes Part I, II, III, and IV, plus a new article from Raymond Ibrahim. It's like a complete box DVD set instead with bonus features, digitally re-mastered.

Interesting that the only response you have is, you posted something about Part I before, Part IV is brand spanking new, and part II and III have never been posted here, neither has the article by Raymond Ibrahim.

I see you accept the truth of what is posted. Good for you.

Perhaps the father needs to read more of his Bible. Where it claims prophet Lot (pbuh) for instance had ACTUAL SEX (not a harmless cuddle or kiss) with not just one of his daughters, but both, and in fact they supposedly seduced him. Or some of the sexual antics it ascribes to another prophet David (pbuh), like sending his neighbour off to war to be killed, so he could have his wife... Compared to the Biblical prophets (or the Jewish lies written about them anyway), Muhammad (pbuh) was an angel.

The above quotes detail absolutely no sexual misconduct from any Islamic sources whatsoever. It uses mostly innuendo to insinuate something is what it quite clearly isn't.

Like for instance the suggestions his relationship with one of his male friends was something which it isn't. In Arabic culture, males are just more affectionate than they are in Western culture. It's not unusual to see men walking down the street linking arms or holding hands. And kissing male friends is pretty much a requirement in social interactions. Likewise hugging is considered a requirement upon meeting a close friend. There's simply nothing more to it though. Likewise for Muslim men to tell one another they love eachother (for the sake of God) is not uncommon, yes it's a little strange at first, but you must realise love is a different concept in Arabic. For instance you often joke around with the word Habibi, which comes from the word for love. But it's context, when used by a man to another man is understood to be purely friendship, but when it's in the context of a male and female, then it is understood to be romantic love.

Since in Western culture most men are either fags or won't even go within 3 feet of one another, it's hard to grasp the different levels of closeness that other societies/cultures have. This Coptic priest knows that, and hence can easily make it sound like something it clearly is not to Western audiences.

The quite ironic thing is that Islam is either attacked for being so harsh against homosexuals, or we have idiots trying to claim it allows it.... Please don't be so ridiculous. Homosexuality is a capital offense in Islam, plain and simple. At least be consistent in the attacks.


Quote:

has practically become a household word in the Muslim world.

I think Botros was already a 'household' word in most of the Arabic world. You do realise it's just the name "Peter" right? It's also a fairly common last name in Egypt amongst Coptics, and let's not forget the UN Sec. Gen. from Egypt Boutros Boutros Ghali, or his father, who was one of the first Prime Ministers of modern Egypt, Boutros Ghali.


Quote:

They are processing what he is saying and they are talking about him with their friends and family.

I've visited Egypt about 3 times since they state his show started, and never heard of his name (until now). Never heard anyone discussing him amongst family and friends. They discuss Amr Khaled, they discuss Omar Abdul Kafi, and all the other Muslim 'telesheikhs' but never heard them discuss this Coptic guy.

Anyway I did a little research about him on youtube, seems some Muslims have been responding to him, and  dispelling his falsifications.

Muslim refutes Botros lies, based on english translation of the Qur'an
Fadil Suleyman answers Botros (in Arabic, but just to let you know, he's been answered, there's quite a lot of other refutations of him in Arabic on youtube also)
Muslim Clerics Convert to Christianity - This is an amusing one. From the title, we'd expect to find a video of a "Muslim cleric" declaring his belief in Christianity. Instead it's just Botros boasting that he's converted many. Empty words to match an empty belief. Then about half way through he scrolls some names, most of them just first names (completely uncomfirmable), and we're supposed to just believe it's so. Sure it makes his assembly feel all pumped up, but that's about it. In the end of the video, you just see a still picture of a Muslim (we suppose) sitting in a court dock, and the caption next to it says "Former Muslim preacher jailed for converting to Christianity", why not a single interview? Not a single video of a supposed "Muslim Priest" converting to Christianity? Not to say it hasn't happened it possibly has, but this guy seems quite full of it.

Btw, most of the names that scroll through in the video appear to be African Americans, most likely nation of Islam (which isn't even Islam anyway) "Priests". What a joke, I think they'd be better off in Christianity than the NOI racist garbage as well, which quite clearly has no link to Islam at all, other than by name. Most likely he just found the list on wikipedia or something, and incorporated it into his video of empty talk.

Also he tries to pass off appearing on the Amr Adib show as a victory against Muslim scholars? Amr Adib is a talk show host, perhaps somewhere between David Letterman and Jerry Springer, he's no Islamic scholar. What a joke.

Anyway couldn't find a single video of him actually engaging in a discussion with a Muslim scholar, just a lot of empty talk about his so called achievements. I might watch one or two of his supposed videos on 'deconstructing' the Qur'an, just to pick the holes out of it.

From last time.

Quote:

Likewise for Muslim men to tell one another they love eachother (for the sake of God) is not uncommon, yes it's a little strange at first, but you must realise love is a different concept in Arabic. For instance you often joke around with the word Habibi, which comes from the word for love. But it's context, when used by a man to another man is understood to be purely friendship, but when it's in the context of a male and female, then it is understood to be romantic love.

All Western men are either fags or wont get within 3 feet of their friends? Not sure about that. You see footballers give each other hugs all the time. Some of them might be fags, but probably most of them would not be.

That said, as comfortable as I might be with my sexuality, I don't think I would appear at a knock in the door in the nude and give one of my friends a hug as the prophet did.

Also, having a penchant for menstrual blood is a bit odd. As is obtaining the best revelations while wearing women's clothing. Perhaps you should wear some women's clothing Abu, and get some revelations.

As to Father Botros, the ratings show he gets 50 million viewers a week, so someone is watching. The bulk of his show is in Arabic, its hard to get translations, so its not for western audiences, its for Arabs.

And Abu, if you think you can best him in your knowledge of the Koran - write a letter to him, or an email, and say you will appear on the show to debate him. That way you could conquer this infidel for us all to see - surely Allah will give you much strength to do so - and you can render him ineffective in his blasphemy, just through your powerful oratory skill.

Or don't you have the stones?

Quote:

You see footballers give each other hugs all the time. Some of them might be fags, but probably most of them would not be.

Sporting heroes and other celebrities generally behave different in this respect from the rest of society. I never remember as a young lad seeing men hug each other after scoring a goal at any local Aussie rules matches.

Unless times have changed a helluva lot since I was a lad, then I'd have to conclude Western society is still much the same.


Quote:

I don't think I would appear at a knock in the door in the nude and give one of my friends a hug as the prophet did.

That just sounds like over exaggerated garbage to me. It's forbidden for people to open doors nude, or even be in the presence of anyone other than their spouse or a doctor naked. Also he never quotes anyhting saying he was nude. He merely claims he didn't get dressed, that would most likely only mean he didn't wear outer garments. But again, since he doesn't even give a concrete reference, it's untraceable..

I note the good father doesn't actually give references, just rattles off names of books. Means little, if we can't reference it. And even those references he gives appear to be incorrect, like this for instance:


Quote:

Then he offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

Sahih al-Bukhari is referenced in a three tier system, Volume, Book, Hadith Number. He gives only two numbers, which makes it impossible to find. I searched for "dressed" and "clothing" together in Sahih al-Bukhari and it was not found:


Quote:

The query [dressed and clothing] generated the following matches: Complete Sahih Bukhari None.

Volume 2 only goes up to Hadith number 823.

Perhaps if you can get a proper reference for the claim, we can investigate it. But my feeling is you've been duped, not surprisingly.

Strangely the only references to any combination of these words on google, is to Fr. Boutros' lectures...

He's referring to page numbers I think.

Have to wait until I get back into the office. I have Bukhari on my shelf. Surely a good Muslim like you does too right Abu?

Quote:

He's referring to page numbers I think.

2/911 looks like a page reference to you?

Firstly page numbers would vary amongst different printings, so it'd be a pretty useless reference. The book is divided into volumes, books and then individual hadith numbers, this is consistent amongst different printings and even translations. That's the standard way to reference it. Surely the good father should know that right? After all, he's an expert on Islam, right?


Quote:

I have Bukhari on my shelf. Surely a good Muslim like you does too right Abu?

I do have a hard copy on my shelf of the abridged English translation, I normally prefer to use a searchable online version though, since it's much more accessible.

Remember the article is not a transcript of what Father Botros says, it's an article ABOUT what Father Botros says. The article says, that there were 32 references in the hadith about Mohammed wearing women's clothing.

I may send Al Hayat TV an email, asking for all 32 references. Then, 1) you and I will know what he is talking about 2) you will be ready with the correct hadith justification for you wearing your latest Autumn frock to the Preston Mosque.

I very much doubt you're going to find the references. Although you seem to have a lot of faith in the good father, he's quite clearly a fraudster. Viewed the youtube links I provided? The guy's been ripped, and the only reason he probably even does this, is because he's so angry at the number of Copts embracing Islam.

And as for frocks, keep in mind that there's not much difference between men and women's clothing in some cultures, especially Arabic culture. Men wear flowing 'dresses', and that is just normal men's attire. And back in those days, they mostly just wore 'wraps', so I doubt there would've been too much difference between a male's wrap and a female's. What this probably turns out to be is something along the lines of using her wrap to quickly cover himself when someone wanted to enter the room, or something to that effect. Hardly cross-dressing. If it's even found to exist at all..

As I said, seems to be all based on innuendo and trying to twist things into something they clearly are not.

Was mohammed framed?

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2009 at 9:11pm:

I very much doubt you're going to find the references. Although you seem to have a lot of faith in the good father, he's quite clearly a fraudster. As I said, seems to be all based on innuendo and trying to twist things into something they clearly are not.

So get on his show, debate him, and you will be the Uber Legend of the Islamic world. Whereas previously Father Botros was a pain the ass for AL Quada to the extent that they put a 60 million bounty on his head, Abu the Legend of Islam went on Al Hayat, debated him, and Father Botros never went on television again, such was humiliation after receiving the wit, wisdom and logic that is Abu.

Abu comes back to Lakemba Mosque to a parade of 72 virgins, and is carried through the streets of Bankstown on an easy chair.