Just for the record - Memorising the Quran

---

This blog post has moved here

---

During a discussion with a guy named Shabir he proposed the Quran was a unique book because it had been learned off by heart by so many people.  He argued this was because it's divine author had deliberately made it easy to learn. Although he said he didn't think this proved the divine origin of the book he argued that it begs the question.

Obviously this is non-sequitur. If the book is easy to learn it doesn't prove anything other than it is easy to learn. Even the fact that the Quran has been memorised by many people doesn't prove it is easy to learn.   It is claimed the Quran started as an oral tradition and that many people knew all of it before it was ever canonised (even though various hadiths contradict this claim), and it is probably because of this story that it is seen today as a feat which can promote one's social standing.  This alone is enough to create a social phenomenon of learning the Quran by heart, and considering the claimed 1.5+ billion Muslims in the world the number of people achieving this feat is neither surprising or impressive to me.  At the time I thought I recalled mental imagery of young children in Madrasas reciting Quran verses over and over, being punished with the strike of a slipper or stick whenever they got it wrong; I felt it would be too impolite to mention this at the time. If only Allah had made the Quran easy to remember...

Despite not being willing to take his argument as far as claiming it proved divine authorship Shabir was very insistent that I found an example like it, in fact, he insisted that I got together with 9 or 10 of my friends and learn a book from cover to cover.  Taking into account his line of thinking is non-sequitur to the point he wasn't even willing to commit to making it an argument, and how long it would take to memorise a book of similar length, and how I wouldn't want to spend the time learning a book I declined his challenge.  So instead, for some bizarre reason, I ended up accepting I would prove evidence of a book of at least similar size which has been memorised by at least 10 people....but not a phone book.

Jewish people from history has a tradition called Mishna, which means to study by repetition.  It was claimed that Moses received two forms of information on Mount Sinai, one in a form he wrote down and another he memorised and passed on orally.  The Mishna was passed from generation to generation via oral transmission before finally being canonised for reasons of preservation, along with commentaries hundreds of years before Muhammad was even born.

This is not the only historic example.  Indian Hindus have an oral history dating back thousands of years.  The rote techniques for learning the Vedas are quite interesting, they consist of Vedic chants of different styles.  In computer science there is a simple technique called a checksum, which is used to identify possible errors in transmission (a simple example is to use the modulo of the sum of a chunk of data); similarly the Vedic Chants act as checksums.  Not only do the chants having their own system of ensuring accurate recitation, there are also different ways to chant the same information which also have their own checksums, and act as a checksum for the other methods of chanting the same information.  I won't go into details, if you look it up wikipedia you will find information on these Vedic Chants.

This is such common knowledge I can't even imagine why Shabir would ask me to prove it to him, it just seemed to be a way of stalling the conversation.

Seeing as I have no links with a social culture of memorising books to impress my peers it is obvious I don't know any books off by heart, not even the children's books I have read many times.  Shabir on the other hand does have links to such a social culture, which is why he raised the subject in the first place.  Considering how easy he alleges the Quran has been made specifically to learn off by heart, does this mean Shabir himself knows the Quran by heart from cover to cover? Does it also imply he also has 9 friends who have done the same and they could gather together and go through the entire recital, perfectly corroborating each other's words?

I am not claiming it is easy to learn whole books. I expect it is difficult, which is why it takes so many years to achieve. I am claiming the phenomenon is a social one, it has been done before, it still happens today, just not up my street. Shabir is the one claiming the Quran is easy to learn by rote.

I'd ask him to give us a recital but I won't, because I'm not interested in hearing it and neither his success nor failure would prove anything at all.

The discussion we had was "Is the Quran man made?"  Considering we have opposing views as to what the answer is then it was obvious I was going to argue for it being man made and he was expected to argue for it being of divine origin.  After all, the title of the discussion was not "The Quran is man made", which would have meant I was the only one coming to the discussion with a positive claim.  Hearing his argument for divine origin might have been interesting, if only he had felt brave enough to actually try arguing it.

I'd end with a statement declaring my interest in seeing a recital demonstration of the whole Quran from him and his 9 friends but I won't, for two reasons

1. I could never look forward to such a brain numbing experience.
2. I don't think he can live up to his own claim, so I doubt it will ever happen anyway.

When was the last time you heard of someone getting shot over a parking space?

This isn't a blog, just a list of a few links.  People do actually shoot neighbours during long-term disputes over parking spaces.  I'm documenting just a few cases because someone on Twitter begged the question "When was the last time you heard of someone getting shot over a parking space?"

• The shooting in this first case resulted in the shot hitting a 3rd party who was not involved.
• This 74 year old man shot his neighbour, who thankfully survived the shooting. He also tried to shoot his girlfriend but his gun clip was empty.
• This man killed two of his neighbours.

If the Chapel Hill Shooting had involved victims unknown to the murderer then it would be a clear cut case, but that isn't what happened. We should wait and hear what the murderer says, if it was an anti-Muslim attack then he will undoubtedly use this international exposure as a platform to put forward his views, just as Anders Breivik did.

So rather than turning this into some massive them versus us scenario, let's wait and see.  If you have any more news reports I can link to then let me know and I will add them.

What's wrong with the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

---

This blog post has moved here

---

The Kalam argument is essentially that every action has a cause, and that an infinite set of cause/effect events can only stretch from an exact starting point into the future (e.g if yesterday you launched a rocket into space on an infinite journey).  It proposes we cannot have an infinite number of events in the past because the current event will always be waiting for an infinite number of prior events to complete.

Any amount of events could logically occur, even an infinite amount of events, if they all occurred at the same time. The important clause in the infinite regression argument is that because we are looking for a cause of the universe these must be cause/effect events, so A must always initiate (but not necessarily complete) before B is initiated, and so on. No matter how small an amount of time elapses between the initiations of A and B it will always be above zero.  Therefore it will always take an infinite amount of time to perform an infinite amount of cause/effect actions, because any number above zero (time) multiplied by an infinity is also an infinity. Effectively we end up waiting for an infinite past to expire before "now" can arrive, and it would seem, at least intuitively, that this cannot happen.

William Lane Craig (and thus Hamza) use this as an argument to claim there must have been an initial cause that was itself not caused.  In this way we could have a finite starting point and can reach the event in question (in this case the big bang). If the initial cause was some intelligent agent that decided to create the universe then the first action occurred 13.8 billion years ago and took 13.8 billion years worth of cause/effect events to get to point when I would start to write this post.  No previous cause is required because it was a decision that started the events from a fixed point and not a previous cause/effect event.

These proponents use the term "infinite regression of events" because they need to hide the fact that it is actually the infinite amount time that is the problem.  They convert a non-action into a first action by invoking an intelligent agent which makes the decision to act.  Using "total number of events" as a unit of measurement the sequence can be initiated with a non-physical event (a decision) and thus provide a termination to avoid a historical infinity. When using time as a unit of measurement the same trick cannot be employed, because there will always be an amount of time between the decision and the action, and also an amount of time before the decision itself.  Using the terminology of events is an attempt to avoid the question "So how long did this intelligent agent exist for before creating the universe?"

When asked this question the answer always seems to be the claim that the agent is eternal. The use of the word "eternal" here is to avoid saying the agent existed forever, because that is an infinite amount of time and we end up with the same infinite regression problem.

The use of the word "eternal" instead suggests that the agent is somehow able to "exist" in a kind of timeless dimension, and in doing removes the necessity of it having to exist for an impossibly infinite amount of time before it created the universe.  So here the proponents of this argument sacrifice the existence of time itself, and have it appear as part of the creation of the universe.

So now the proponents have argued that there is no infinite regression of events, just 13.8 billion years worth, and they have also argued that there is no infinite regression of time because the intelligent agent was without time. However this just leads to a different problem, did this agent have any choice but to create the universe?

In order to have free will one must be at a point where there is a choice to make from numerous options. In this case the options would be to create or not create a universe (putting aside the incalculable options of what form it should take). Importantly, to have free will, the agent must then be able to make a decision based on those options.

The problem is that you must have the options before making the choice, there needs to be a logical precedence in order for free will to work, it essentially boils down to cause/effect of an intelligent source where the cause is the choice and the effect is the intelligent decision that was made.  That is where the problem is, to have cause/effect, even of an intelligent kind, you need time!

Without time either nothing happens, or everything happens at once in a non-deterministic way. How can an intelligence non-deterministically determine how to create a universe?  Did the universe not spring into existence at all because nothing happens in a timeless dimension? Obviously not!

So if everything in a timeless dimension happens at once then this requires the decision to create the universe, to exist simultaneously with the choice of whether or not to create one at all, while simultaneously the universe is already in existence.

If this agent created time before the initial state of the universe in order to avoid the paradox of the universe seed both existing and not existing simultaneously, it just moves the problem to time itself. Time itself would simultanously exist and not exist in this timeless dimension, and then not even as an effect of an intelligent decision to create it.

Without time there can be no logical sequence of evaluating options, making a choice, and then actioning that choice. These are essential for the freedom of will and freedom to act.  Without freewill and/or freedom to act this intelligent agent is impotent, its intelligence is redundant.  Powerful non-intelligent events are called "nature", rendering the existence of the universe an unknown (and very perplexing) natural event.

With time in this dimension there can be no way this intelligent agent can exist for an infinite duration. Without time the agent is irrelevant.

One thing seems pretty certain, and that is 13.8 billion years ago the universe was very tiny. There is no evidence to suggest the universe didn't exist prior to this time, we only know it existed in a different form. We don't even know it started to expand at that point in time, we just know that at a certain point in time it was expanding at a rate we could actually measure.

To even say there is evidence the universe was "created" or "began to exist" is wrong, and all of the logical fallacies built on top of this erroneous basis which require a complex reality of timeless realms are worthless on account that they are both unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Scorning the Prophet is an act of violence - Tim Winters in The Telegraph

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Tim Winters, also known as Abdal Hakim Murad, is a British Muslim theologian and broadcaster. To some he might only be known for video footage in which he explains how homosexuality is an "inherent aberration" and how homosexuals themselves are "ignorant people who don't know what their bodies are for" (See here) The video footage is 15-20 years old and Timothy Winters has apologised for the offence caused by his statements and has distanced himself from them, although I've yet to find a statement from him saying that homosexuality is not an inherent aberration and that homosexuals are not ignorant of what their bodies are for.

This morning I read the article "Scorning the Prophet goes beyond free speech, it's an act of violence" in The Telegraph. It starts with the words "The Paris murders aside, the law has a duty to protect us all from insult and abuse". I thought the opening line seemed to set the whole article up for a session of victim blaming, and it seems I wasn't wrong.  Here are my objections to the article:

The Paris murders aside, the law has a duty to protect us all from insult and abuse

No, this is simply not something you do.  You do not put aside the murder of numerous people merely for causing offence, and then go on to say they should not have offended the killers in the first place.  The law does have a duty to protect people from abuse, but it does not have any duty to protect us from insult.  Don't tell people to forget the disproportionate response in order to get to see how upset you were that some people drew some cartoons.

Muslims believe in every jot and tittle of the Second Commandment. We are to make no graven images of any living thing, irrespective of whether such images might or might not lure the unwary into idolatry.

Here's the thing...I am not a Muslim. I don't believe in the second commandment, My beliefs (or lack of) do not constrain me to avoid drawing pictures.  If that is what you believe that's nice for you, don't do it, but don't tell the rest of the world we have to adhere to your beliefs.  The more you demand the drawing of Muhammad should be forbidden, the more necessary it is for unbelievers to draw him in order to maintain the freedom of our non-Islamic laws.

Unlike some other commandments, notably those against murder, adultery and theft, the Second is treated as a somewhat marginal issue in the classical manuals of Islamic ethics and law. Making pictures of people is forbidden, certainly, but it is hardly as wicked as missing a prayer, or neglecting the welfare of parents.

It should be treated as a marginal offence, for Muslims within a state ruled by Islamic law, and not a more serious offence like (as mentioned) deliberately missing prayers which, by the way, warrants a death penalty.  Let's not forget that Muslims themselves have painted pictures of Muhammad throughout the years.

The murders were the acts of criminals with troubled pasts and little religious knowledge...The difficulty lay in the evident intention to mock, deride and wound. To portray the Prophet naked, or with a bomb in his turban, was not the simple manufacturing of a graven image. It was received, and rightly so, as a deliberate insult to an already maligned and vulnerable community.

The problem with the Charlie Hebdo cartoons is that they were offensive.  Something which, according to hadiths, carried a death sentence during the life of Muhammad.  In this hadith (story from Muhammad's life) a singing girl used to mock Muhammad, and upon his conquest of Mecca he ordered her to be killed even if she was seeking refuge on sacred ground; and in this hadith Muhammad was told about a blind man who stabbed to death his own wife, his wife who was also his slave.  Muhammad was about to rule on his punishment when he was told the murdered women used to abuse and disparage him with her words, in response to these accusations Muhammad declared there should be no punishment for the murderer.

Perhaps these killers were inspired by these stories from Muhammad's own actions, stories which were probably made up over a hundred years after Muhammad's death and shouldn't even be part of Islam?

Scorn towards despised minorities is a hazardous business. During the days of Nazi terror, cartoons supplied a key weapon of anti-Jewish polemic

This is an awful misrepresentation.  As you have just said yourself, the Nazi's propaganda was anti-Jewish, it was not anti-Judaism, and it certainly wasn't a mere mockery of the claims of Judaism itself.  The Nazi's didn't mock stories of burning bushes, or bread falling from the sky, they produced material which portrayed Jewish people as sub-human, people to be despised. To compare this to a mockery of the idea that non-Muslims have to abide by blasphemy rules of a belief system they do not believe in is absurd beyond words.

To laugh at the Prophet, the repository of all that Muslims revere and find precious, to reduce him to the level of the scabrous and comedic, is something very different from “free speech” as usually understood. It is a violent act surely conscious of its capacity to cause distress, ratchet up prejudice and damage social cohesion.

A violent act?  If someone is violent towards you then it is easier to understand a violent reaction, and it is clear that this is your intention when labelling it as a violent act.  Who was physically injured by this violent act?   This is a very poor attempt at excusing violent reprisal! Could you please supply a list of victims, their injuries, and at which hospitals they were treated?  To classify those cartoons as violent acts is as erroneous as classifying the ensuing murders as art.

an atheist activist was convicted for distributing anti-Christian images in the prayer room at Liverpool Airport. The deeply distressed airport chaplain took him to court, and won easily.

Again, I object.  The offender mentioned in this case went to a place of worship and distributed his materials, he was pushing the information onto people who did not want it.  The problem with his case isn't that he was producing material insulting religious ideas, but that he was being anti-social in distributing this material without permission on private property, it was harassment, it was material that contained images of a sexual nature being distributed in a public place where there are children.

My second objection is that this story has been misrepresented as a man being prosecuted for distributing "anti-Christian" images, this simply is not the case.  According to this news article, which also appeared in The Telegraph, the images consisted of

1. Jesus on a cross next to an advert for "No more nails."
2. Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of heaven being told "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins"
3. Two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality for everyone except women and homosexuals.
4. A drawing of the Pope with a condom on his finger.
5. A women kneeling in front of a Catholic priest captioned with a crude pun.
6. An image where sausages were labelled as "The Koran."

Labelling pork as "The Quran" would be considered a massive offence by many Muslims.  From these descriptions it seems these leaflets were more derogatory about Islam than Christianity.

The crime for which this man was arrested was harassment, and rightly so. I would be equally as willing to condemn anyone for handing out Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad in a Mosque in order to cause offence, that too would be harassment!

Mr Winters was obviously aware of the details of this case, so why pretend it was a purely anti-Christian act that resulted in the successful prosecution of the perpetrator?  His purpose was simply to make it look as though it is an example of double standards when it comes to mocking Islam.  It is an attempt at making the Muslim community victims of injustice.  Whether this injustice actually exists or not I do not know, but the cited case is a clear example of faking such injustice.

It is for the many Muslims who now populate the Inns of Court to discover whether these legal precepts can in practice be used to protect non-Christians from abuse. A series of complex cases would trigger an overdue national and perhaps Europe-wide discussion on the right to protection from hate speech. Not all the lawsuits would succeed, but the community would have shown that it is determined to enjoy the protection of our country’s laws.

Go ahead, that is what the courts are for! If you don't like the ruling then that is what appeals are for! These laws that apply to any case on the mockery of Christianity also apply to the mockery Islam, these laws that apply to dehumanisation of Christians also apply to the dehumanisation of Muslims.

You should perhaps be careful what you wish for.  The freedom of speech laws which permit people to mock your beliefs are the exact same ones which allow Muslims to call for the establishment of an Islamic system of government in the UK, to say non-believers are worse than cattle, and that we are people of no intelligence.  British law does not protect people from hurt feelings, nor should it.  If it did then religious books such as The Quran and The Old Testament, which deride homosexuals and unbelievers would be amongst the first to be censored.

Blasphemy and the BBC

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Recently I read this excellent article on the BBC news website by the historian Tom Holland.  Once again the BBC have not published  examples of the cartoons that caused the offence.  Personally I think it is important to show these kinds of images so that people can get a fuller idea of what exactly what was perceived as so offensive that it resulted in the murder of twelve people,  It is important that people see these images so they can be more appropriately outraged at the horrendous reaction to such irrelevant cartoon pictures.

The BBC seem to have a policy of not showing images that depict the Islamic prophet Muhammad, but why?  This got me thinking, are the BBC as equally sensitive about not displaying images that upset people of other religions?

The first thing that sprung to mind was the Jeremy Paxman interview with the Jesus and Mo author.  During this interview the author was shown drawing a typical cell from one of his cartoons.  The BBC showed the footage only as far as him drawing Jesus, and then cut before he started to draw Muhammad (3 min 25 secs).

A quick browse through the BBC news website revealed that the level of "respect" shown for the feelings of Muslim's is higher than that of people of other beliefs.  I have deliberately chosen a few examples not just of images the BBC have shown, but specifically ones where the story is about how people were offended by those images for religious reasons.


The first article is about a modified depiction of Da Vinci's painting of The Last Supper.  I am not sure how it was deemed offensive but this poster, advertising a clothing brand, was ruled as "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs" by a judge in Milan and the poster was banned.  The BBC wanted us to see the offensive material so we could judge for ourselves whether or not this was an overreaction.  Article here.

The second article contains not one but two prints of posters that received complaints on the grounds of religious offence.  The campaign seems to have centred around the idea of selling ice cream by promoting indulgence in carnal pleasures.  The first image depicts a pregnant nun, and the second depicts two priests in a homoerotic pose clearly about to passionately kiss each other.  Again it seems it was important for the readers to get an idea of the content of the posters that had raised complaints. Article here.

The third article is about how a news paper advert for a betting firm was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority who said it was "likely to cause serious or widespread offence".  Even though this image was banned from appearing in newspapers (mainly for breaching advertising standard on associating gambling and sex) the BBC thought it was necessary to show an image of Jesus with a bottle in one hand and a bikini clad Brazilian woman in the other. Article here.

The final article is a story about how a billboard poster in New Zealand was causing offence to Christians.  It depicted a downcast Joseph in bed with Mary accompanied by the caption "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow".  The offence here presumably is that God's impregnation of the Virgin Mary (Miriam in Islam) was an act that physically pleasured Mary, or in other words, God gave her one and it was the best ever. Article here.

Joseph and Mary are revered in Islam.  So why is it that depicting Muhammad is seen as such a taboo when the portrayal and mockery of other Islamic figures (and even God himself) is okay?  Muslims consider Allah to be the god of the Torah and the Bible, so why is it okay to say "God was a hard act to follow" but not "Allah was a hard act to follow"?
**Update: I mistakenly listed Joseph as a prophet.

Is seems it is okay for the BBC to show material mocking "God", but wouldn't consider showing material mocking Allah.  It's okay to show material mocking Jesus but not Muhammad, even when it is on the same piece of paper.  Why is this?

The answer lies not in the perceived insult of people (and God himself) revered by Islam, but in linking the identities of the mocked specifically to Islam.  It's okay to mock Joseph/Jesus/God as long as you aren't mocking them by their Islamic specific names Yusuf/Isa/Allah.  Mocking the Islamic terminology is seen as a threat to the institute of Islam, something empires simply cannot afford to tolerate in case it weakens its control over the masses. This is why Muslims wishing to install Islam as a world political system (read "Empire") try to whip up such a frenzy of offence amongst the world's Muslim population whenever Muhammad is mocked in a cartoon.

The BBC should be neutral when it comes to reproducing materials, either show offending material or don't.  If  an image will offend people then it is quite noble of the BBC not to reproduce it, but to avoid reproducing images that are a vitally important part of the story is simply ridiculous.

The sad thing is that the BBC has been reproducing offensive images of Islamic prophets for years.  They are not avoiding offence, they are (possibly inadvertently) only avoiding shaking the foundations of an Islamic empire.  How many other states are afforded the same privilege?

Israeli sniper killing wounded civilian

I was on Twitter this morning and saw a link to this video reporting to show an Palestinian civilian being killed by an Israeli sniper as he lay injured on the floor.

I watched it through a few times, trying to understand exactly what was happening. I found some parts difficult to understand so I decided to download the video. By capturing screen shots and overlaying them in Photoshop I was satisfied that there were no continuity errors or anything like that in the scenery. I watched the video frame by frame and there is at least one continuity error, very likely caused by the editing, and what seems to be an inaccuracy in the description.

The video is running at 25 frames per second. The time format shown is A:BB:CC where A = Minutes, BB = Seconds, and CC is a frame number from 0 to 24 denoting which of the 25 frames is being displayed at the current Minute/Second. Each frame lasts 1/25th of a second, which is 40 milliseconds.

At 0:24:09 we see the future victim in the green t-shirt for the first time, he is helping to carry a man on a stretcher. If you look closely you can see the coloured stripes at the hem of his t-shirt's sleeves.

0:27:08 The man on the stretcher appears to have a nasty injury to his lower right leg.

0:36:20 The victim is seen ahead of the cameraman, calling out to someone he is searching for. In the foreground we see a man with a white bandanna on, the other male aid worker has a dark sleeved top on beneath his high visibility jacket.

0:48:19 The victim is seen in the distance, leading the way up the street over the rubble.

00:59:18 The sound of a shot is heard, the cameraman reacts audibly at 1:00:03, which is 10 frames and therefore 0.4 seconds. Certainly nothing unusual about that.

1:49:19 The aid workers are now quite some distance away, it is possible to make out the white bandanna of one of the workers and the dark sleeved top of the other.

2:13:01 The video footage is continuous between 1:49:19 (above) and this point in time. The cameraman does not move between those two points so we know how far away the aid workers are, it also shows the victim is within an arm's reach of the cameraman.

2:22:17 Two shots are heard. Still the cameraman has not moved along the road. At 2:23:07 The cameraman reacts to the shots, this time 0.6 seconds so again within reason.

2:23:19 Confusion ensues and the camera's view is covered by close contact with the victim, movement of the phone filming the sky for a split second, and eventually what looks like flesh (pictured).

2:24:16 The image is completely white.

2:24:17 The next frame is as displayed above. The green arrow is indicating the position of a shadow from the victim's leg. 

2:25:10 The victim is being asked "Can you move?" - The victim is now on the floor at least 2 metres away from the cameraman. At this point we cannot tell exactly where the victim is, so we don't know if the cameraman has run away from the victim, or if the video has been edited at 2:24:16 and the victim is in a different place.

2:30:03 The victim can now be clearly seen to be much closer to the aid workers. He is lying down and appears to be sending a text on his mobile phone.

I have superimposed the frame of the victim on the ground over the image from 1:49:19. Matching up three distinctive items in the scenery I have placed a copy of the victim on the original photo to illustrate where he is.

2:33:20 The victim is seen raising his left arm to show an injury to his hand/wrist.

Summary

In the 1:49:19 the arrangement of the people is as follows

Aid workers -> Lady -> Camera man -> Victim

The same arrangement appears at 2:13:01 where the victim was the furthest along the street away from the aid workers.

At 2:22:17 The two shots are heard. The arrangement is still the same, with the victim being the furthest of the three away from the aid workers.

0.96 seconds later, at 2:24:16, the camera cuts. The next image we see is the one at 2:24:17. At this point in time we see the arrangement is now Aid workers -> Victim -> Camera man -> Lady. 

The victim is approximately 2 metres closer to the aid workers than the cameraman is. In addition to this he is lying down and approximately 10 metres closer to the aid workers than he was before. This, I think, shows conclusively that there is an edit at this point.

Question set 1

1. How much time is missing from the footage, and what happened during that time?
2. How did the victim move the approximate 10 metres closer to the aid workers?
3. Why is the victim lying on the floor seemingly unable to move if the gunshot injured his hand or wrist?
4. Did he run and fall during the missing footage, could he have fallen and twisted his ankle + cut his left wrist on the rocks?
5. Was he carried by the cameraman and lady and then dropped for some reason? If so, why would they carry him for an injured hand/wrist?

Question 2

According to this Wiki page the Israeli army uses the following rifles

• IMI Galil assault rifle
  Muzzle velocity 800 m/s
• IMI Tavor assault rifle
  Muzzle velocity 870 m/s
• M89SR sniper rifle
  Muzzle velocity 855 m/s
• M1 Carbine
  Muzzle velocity 607 m/s

The speed of sound at sea level is 340 m/s, to travel faster than this the elevation of the scene would have to be below sea level or be very cold. This means that the rifle with the lowest muzzle velocity fires bullets at 1.79 times the speed of sound.

The first gun shot we hear after the victim is on the ground is at 2:37:11. The cameraman reacts to the sound 160 milliseconds later at 2:37:15 and the last we see the victim upright is 1 second after the gunshot at 2:37:18.  A high velocity rifle shooting someone would cause a visual impact, especially with the bullet entering a body with a thin t-shirt on, yet we do not see one.

• Scenario 1: The victim is closer to the cameraman than the shooter.
  In this scenario the bullet travelling at nearly 1.8 times the speed of sound would reach the victim before the sound reached the cameraman.
• Scenario 2: The shooter is closer to the cameraman that to the victim.
  In this case the bullet would have less time to outright the sound of the shot. The scenario in which the bullet and sound are as close together is at the end of the gun at the point of firing. Even if the shooter was standing next to the cameraman we would expect the bullet (travelling at a minimum of 607 m/s) to have travelled the few metres from cameraman to victim in less than 0.16 seconds (assuming a 10 metre distance from cameraman to victim), so we should have seen an impact wound well within the 1 second of video footage we have of the victim from the point of the gunshot. Placing the shooter further away only gives more time for bullet impact before the sound is heard.

I can only conclude from this that the 2nd shot did not hit the victim, how is that incorrect?

Question 3

At 2:54:11 the third shot is heard. The shot misses the victim and hits a rock behind him, as seen in the picture by the dust rising from the shot.

The visual effects of the bullet are seen at the same time as the shot is heard, indicating the shooter is very close, corroborating the claim above that we should have seen an impact wound from the 2nd gunshot if the victim had been hit. Even assuming this is a different shooter the point in Question 2 still stands by its own merits.

The question that arises here is, why do the publishers of the video claim the victim was shot 3 times when the final shot clearly misses?

Conclusion

The worst case scenario I can see here is the following:

1. A shot was fired which either hit the victim somewhere in the arm/hand or missed him.
2. There was no need to carry him, so he ran towards the aid workers.
3. Either he was shot for a 2nd time while the camera was not filming, or he tripped and fell. It is also possible that at this point he sustained the injury to his wrist, along with one to another part of his body which prevented him from getting up.
4. Another shot was fired at him in an attempt to kill him, and missed.
5. A 3rd and final shot was fired at him, which also missed.

It is clear that someone (I will assume an Israeli) was trying to kill a wounded non-combatant as he lay on the floor. This alone is disgusting, I hope it is not the case that this event has not been misrepresented (3 hits + death) as a propaganda tool. At the same time I sincerely hope the victim in his video is alive and well.

Perhaps there are some points I am missing? In which case I would certainly like to read them so that I can understand the events more clearly. It is for this reason I would like to ask ISM Palestine to release the full unedited video so that the events occurring in the gaps can be understood properly.

I am not claiming some kind of conspiracy here, I am just struggling to reach a conclusive decision of what exactly happened (the intentions I think were clear).

Apostasy in Islam

---

This blog post has moved here

---

Here are my notes on apostasy from my recent discussion with Abdullah al-Andalusi

Quran verses

Q4.89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them
Q4.90 Except those who seek refuge with a people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you or make war on their own folk

*Maududi says that the protection of going to a non-war country was due to the sanctity of the treaty and not the sanctity of blood

Books on jurisprudence

========================================================
School: Hanbali
Title: Al Umda fi al Fiqh
Author: Imam Muwaffaq Ibn Qudama (A.H. 541-620)
========================================================
Definition
Page 309: If someone denies Allah's existence, or attributes to Him a partner, or a consort, or a son, or if he accuses Allah of telling lies, or blasphemes him, or if he calls His Messenger a liar, or insults him, or if he denies a Prophet, or denies the Book of Allah or anything from it, or denies one of the basic pillars of Islam, or if he attributes lawfulness to something declared unlawful by the consensus of legal opinion, he is guilty of apostasy - unless he is one of those who are unaware of the religious duties and prohibitions, in which case he must be informed thereof, and if he does not accept, he is guilty of unbelief.

Punishment
Page 309: If someone apostatises from Islam, whether it be a man or a woman, the penalty of death must be enforced, because of the saying of Allah's Apostle
"If someone changes his religion, you must kill him"
The apostate should not be killed until he has been invited three times to repent. If he repents [he is spared], but if not, he is killed by the sword.

=================
School: Shafi
Title: Minhaj at talibin
Author: Nawawi
=================
Definition
Page 436: the abjuration of Islam either mentally or by words, or by acts incompatible with faith.  As to oral abjuration it matters little whether the words are said in joke or through a sprit of contradiction or in good faith.  Before such words can be considered as a sign of apostasy they must contain a precise declaration

1. That one does not believe in the existence of the Creator, or of his Apostles; or
2. That Muhammad, or one of the other apostles, is an impostor; or
3. That one considers lawful what is strictly forbidden by the ijmaa; or
4. The one considered to be forbidden what is lawful according to the ijmaa
5. That one is not obliged to follow the precepts of the ijmaa, as well positive as negative; or
6. That one intends shortly to change one's religion; or that one has doubts upon the subject of the truth of Islam etc.

Page 436: As to acts, these are not considered to be incompatible with faith, unless they show a clear indication of a mockery or denial of religion. Throwing the Quran upon a muck heap, prostrating oneself before an idol, or worshipping the sun.

Page 69: A sane adult Moslem who refuses to pray and dénies the obligation is an apostate and punishable as such ; even if he has merely neglected prayer through laziness, without denying its obligation, he is none the less punishable with death.

Page 69: Capital punishment is liable to be incurred by the omission of even one single prescribed prayer, the moment its time is passed, if done designedly and without ofïering any excuse. One should begin by exhorting the culprit to repentance, and if this be unavailing strike him upon the neck. Some authorities prefer that he should be pricked with a sharp instrument until he either prays or dies.

Page 241: By the fact of being born of Moslem parents, even though only one of them may bave been Moslem at the moment of the child's conception. If such a child, after attaining majority becomes an infidel, he must be regarded and punished as an apostate

Punishment
Page 437: An attempt should be made to induce the apostate to return from his or her errors; though, according to one authority, this is only a commendable proceeding.  The exhortation should take place immediately, or, according to one jurist, in the first three days; and if it is of no effect, the guilty man or woman should be put to death.

Page 523: Where, after execution of a death penalty, either under the law of talion, or for apostasy, or even by stoning or whipping, the witnesses déclare that they hâve made a false declaration, intentionally, against the executed person, they are punishable either with death under the law of talion, or with payment of the price of blood on the higher scale

================================
School: Shafi
Title: Reliance of the traveller
Author: Shihabuddin Abu al-'Abbas Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri (AH 702-769 / AD 1302–1367)
================================
Definition
Page 596: #08.7 to prostrate to an idol whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like .that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah

Page 597: #08.7 to speak words that imply unbelief such as "Allah is the third of three":' or "I am Allah"unless one's tongue has run away with one. or one is quoting another

#08.7 to revile Allah or His messenger

#08.7 to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him

#08.7 to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

Punishment
Page 595: #08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

#08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Page 596: #08.3 If he is a freeman. no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties.

#08.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).

#08.5 If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it (i.e. his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith (def: 08.7(12))) is accepted from him. though he is disciplined (017).

#08.7 to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;

#08.7 to mockingly say, "I don't know what faith is":

#08.7 to reply to someone who says, "There is no power or strength save through Allah": "Your saying 'There's no power or strength, etc.' won't save you from hunger";

Page 598: #08.7 to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

============================================
School: Hanifa
Title: Shaybani's Siyar (The Islamic law of nations)
Author: Muhammad Shaybani (Imam Abu Hanifa's student)
============================================
#985 I asked: If a Muslim apostatizes (irtadda) from Islam, what do you think would be the ruling regarding him?
#986 He replied: Islam would be offered to him; he has either to accept it or be killed at once, unless he asked for deferment.  This would be given to him and its duration would be 3 days.
#987 I asked: Has any narrative come to your knowledge about this matter?
#988 He replied: Yes, it has been related to us from the Prophet to this effect, as well as [narratives] from [The caliph] Abi b. Abi Taalib, AbdAllah b. Mas'ud, and Mu'adh b. Jabal.  Thus this ruling is based on the Sunna.

#1033 I asked: Would you think that the apostate's slaughtered animal would be lawful to eat
#1034 He replied: No
#1035 I asked: Even if he had become a Christian?
#1036 He replied: Even if he had [apostatized to Christianity], because he would not enjoy the status of a Jew or a Christian.  Do you think that he would be permitted to remain in the religion [he had adpoted]?  He would have to become a Muslim or else be executed.

#1053 I asked: If a man has apostatized from Islam and another [man] cut off his hand or destroyed, intentionally or unintentionally, his eye or committed against him any other tort, intentionally or unintentially, would this [other] man be held liable for anything?
#1054 He replied: No
#1055 I asked: Why?
#1056 He replied: Since his blood is lawful to shed nobody would be liable for any tort against him, whether cutting off his hand or foot or committing a tort or injury against him.
#1057 I asked: Would [the ruling] be the same if he accepts Islam and then dies of the wound?
#1058 He replied: The person who has committed [the said tort] would not be liable for anything.

#1069 I asked: If a woman apostatized from Islam, what would be the ruling regarding her?
#1070 He replied: Abu Hanifa held that she would not be executed, but imprisoned indefinitely until she returns to Islam.
#1130 + However, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad [b. al-Hasan] held that the apostate woman would be liable to execution unless she returns to Islam. But Abu Hanifa held that she would be in the same category as a very old man.

#1159 I asked: If a tort was committed against [the slave woman] in apostasy, would the offender be held liable for anything?
#1160 He replied: No
#1161 I asekd: Why, if you do not approve of the execution of women?
#1162 He replied: Since some of the jurists hold that apostate women should be executed, I hold that a tort committed against them would not render [the offender] liable [for paying compensation]

#1330 I asked: If a group [of Muslims] apostatized from Islam and were attacked by [other] Muslims without [first] having been invited to adopt Islam, do you think that those [who attacked] would be liable for anything?
#1331 He replied: No
#1332 I asked: Why? According to Sunna they should be invited [to accept Islam] before being fought.
#1333 He replied: Even so, they would not be liable for anything.
#1334 I asked: Would the same be true if a single man apostatized from Islam and was killed by another before was invited [to return] to Islam?
#1335 He replied: Yes
#1341 + Men [who apostatize] would be liable to be executed, regardless whether they were slaves or free.

#1344 I asked: If a lad apostatized from Islam before he reached puberty, do you think that he would be executed?
#1345 He replied: No
#1346 I asked: Would the same hold true if he had come of age while still an unbeliever?
#1347 He replied: I would order his imprisonment rather than execution, because he had never professed Islam after he had come of age.

===============================
School: Hanafi
Title: Kitab al-athar of Imam Abu Hanifah
Author: Hanifah Abu Imam
===============================
#591 Women are not to be killed when they renege on Islam but they are compelled to return to it.
+We detail her in prison until she returns in tawbah or dies.

======================================
School: Maliki
Title: The Risala of 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani
Author: 'Abdullah ibn Abi Zayd
======================================
1.8d No Muslim who commits a wrong action becomes an unbeliever as long as he believes. The same applies to someone who commits acts of disobedience while he nevertheless believes that the Shari'a forbids them. If someone does something such shows that he lacks belief, like throwing a copy of the Qur'an into the rubbish, then he is an apostate

37.19 An apostate is also killed unless he repents. He is allowed three days grace; if he fails to utilise the chance to repent, the execution takes place. This same also applies to women apostates.
+If a Muslim should abandon the performance of prayer because he disputes its being obligatory, then such a person shall be treated as an apostate - he should be given three days within which to repent. If the three days lapse without his repenting, he is then executed

40.18 God, Glorified be He, has prohibited the shedding of the blood of Muslims; so also has he prohibited assault on their property except for a lawful cause. It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except when he commits apostasy, or when he commits adultery, or when he kills a person and this is not in retaliation, or when he becomes an outlaw, or when he renounces the faith.


==============================================
Title: The punishment of the apostate according to Islamic law
Author: Maududi
==============================================
To everyone acquainted with Islamic law it is no secret that according to Islam the punishment for a Muslim who turns to kufr (infidelity, blasphemy) is execution. Doubt about this matter first arose among Muslims during the final portion of the nineteenth century as a result of speculation. Otherwise, for the full twelve centuries prior to that time the total Muslim community remained unanimous about it. The whole of our religious literature clearly testifies that ambiguity about the matter of the apostate's execution never existed among Muslims. The expositions of the Prophet, the Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Khulafa'-i Rashidun), the great Companions (Sahaba) of the Prophet, their Followers (Tabi'un), the leaders among the mujtahids and, following them, the doctors of the shari'ah of every century are available on record. All these collectively will assure you that from the time of the Prophet to the present day one injunction only has been continuously and uninterruptedly operative and that no room whatever remains to suggest that perhaps the punishment of the apostate is not execution.

Hadiths

* Kill apostates with death, but not death by fire.

Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.'"  http://quranx.com/Hadith/Nasai/Book-37/Hadith-95

* An apostate can be offered the chance to change their mind first.

A man who turned back from Islam was brought to Abu Musa. He invited him to repent for twenty days or about so. Muadh then came and invited him (to embrace Islam) but he refused. So he was beheaded. http://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/Book-40/Hadith-6

* A man converted to Islam and then became a Jew.

Mu’adh bin Jabal (RAA) narrated - concerning a man who embraced Islam and then turned to Judaism (i.e. apostated), ‘I shall not sit down until he is killed. That is the Command of Allah and His Messenger, and he gave an order that he must be killed and so he was.’ Agreed upon. In a version by Abu Dawud, ‘He was given a chance to repent and retrun to Islam but he refused.’ http://quranx.com/Hadith/Maram/In-Book/Book-9/Hadith-1213

* Apostasy is one of the three reasons one is permitted to kill a Muslim.

The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims. http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/In-Book/Book-87/Hadith-17

* Caliph Uthman confirms the three "crimes" that warrant killing a Muslim.

"We were with 'Uthman when he was under siege and we could hear what was said from Al-Balat. 'Uthman came in one day, then he came out, and said: 'They are threatening to kill me.' We said: 'Allah will suffice you against them.' He said: 'Why would they kill me? I heard the Messenger of Allah [SAW] say: It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in one of three cases: A man who reverts to Kufr after becoming Muslim, or commits adultery after being married, or one who kills a soul unlawfully. By Allah, I did not commit adultery during Jahiliyyah or in Islam, I never wished to follow any other religion since Allah guided me, and I have never killed anyone, so why do they want to kill me?'" http://quranx.com/Hadith/Nasai/In-Book/Book-37/Hadith-54

* The three "crimes" again.

The blood of a Muslim who testifies that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed lawfully, except in three cases: a married person who committed adultery, in Qisas (retaliation) for murder (life for life) and the apostate from Islam who abandons the Muslim Jama’ah (community). http://quranx.com/Hadith/Maram/In-Book/Book-9/Hadith-1169

* The three "crimes" again.

'It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in three cases: A man who commits adultery after having married; or one who kills intentionally, in which case he deserves retaliation; or one who apostatizes after having become Muslim, in which case he deserves to be killed.' http://quranx.com/Hadith/Nasai/Book-37/Hadith-92

* The Jewish man killed for apostasy was told to return to Islam before being killed.

Mu’adh bin Jabal (RAA) narrated - concerning a man who embraced Islam and then turned to Judaism (i.e. apostated), ‘I shall not sit down until he is killed. That is the Command of Allah and His Messenger, and he gave an order that he must be killed and so he was.’ Agreed upon. In a version by Abu Dawud, ‘He was given a chance to repent and retrun to Islam but he refused.’ http://quranx.com/Hadith/Maram/In-Book/Book-9/Hadith-1213

* The three "crimes" again.

The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful, except for one of three (cases):Illegitimate sexual relations after Ihsan (having been married), or apostasy after Islam, or taking a life without right, for which he is killed. http://quranx.com/Hadith/Tirmidhi/In-Book/Book-33/Hadith-1

* A Jewish man chained up for apostatising, while awaiting his own murder.

Once Mu`adh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Mu`adh asked, "What is this?" Abu Musa said, "(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Mu`adh said, "I will surely chop off his neck!" http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/In-Book/Book-64/Hadith-372

* A Muslim refuses to sit until an apostate is killed, as Muhammad had ruled.

A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu`adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu`adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu`adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle. http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/In-Book/Book-93/Hadith-21

Only apostates who have fought against Allah and His Apostle?

* Suggests apostates MUST HAVE FOUGHT in war

By Allah, Allah's Messenger never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate. http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/In-Book/Book-87/Hadith-38

* Questions "must have fought" because the camel theives were described as "fought against Allah and His Apostle" for murder and theft

(People who killed the herdsman) - Abu Qilabah said: They were people who had stolen, killed, apostatized after their faith *and fought against Allah and his Apostle* http://quranx.com/Hadith/AbuDawud/DarusSalam/Hadith-4364

* The camel thieves were killed for kufr, not sin

Then they killed their herdsmen and drove off the camels. The Prophet of Allah sent (men) after them and they were brought back, then he had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes were branded." The Commander of the Believers, 'Abdul-Malik, said to Anas, when he was narrating this Hadith: "Was that (punishment) for Kufr or for sin?" He said: "For Kufr." http://quranx.com/Hadith/Nasai/In-Book/Book-37/Hadith-70