Answering Christianity Research Center

https://discover-the-truth.com/2017/11/06/understanding-quran-929-in-light-of-the-earliest-historical-sources-of-islam/

Please subscribe this website.

Answering-Christianity and Discover-the-Truth can join together to refute against radical infidels!

Everyone! Check this out. It's very cool, but we need to keep an eye on robots in the future. Robots might do some bad things like killing humans. Who knows, but Allah Almighty knows the answer.

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1183166/saudi-arabia

Check it out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0_Lye2VLWs

The media is making people disproportionately fearful of Muslim terrorists despite committing fewer acts compared with non-Muslims, a study from Georgia State University showed.
 An analysis of US media coverage between 2011 and 2015 found that while Muslims perpetrated fewer acts of terrorism than non-Muslims, attacks by Muslims were nonetheless written about 4.5 times more than the others.
 In their study “Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media Attention Than Others?”, authors Erin M. Kearns, Allison Betus and Anthony Lemieux said that the uneven media coverage ‘reinforces cultural narratives about what and who should be feared.’
 “All attacks in this study are considered terrorism by experts and should be covered as such. Yet, clearly, media do not cover these events equally … Muslims perpetrated 12.4 percent of the attacks yet received 41.4 percent of the news coverage,” the authors said in their study.
“By covering terrorist attacks by Muslims dramatically more than other incidents, media frame this type of event as more prevalent. It is no wonder that Americans are so fearful of radical Islamic terrorism.”
 “Reality shows, however, that these fears are misplaced. One way to combat this is to change the public narrative on terrorism to cover attacks more evenly,” they commented.
 Focusing on two sources – LexisNexis Academic and CNN.com – to measure media coverage, they found that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing received almost 20 percent of all coverage relating to US terror attacks in the five-year period.
 The attack by carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, ethnic Chechens who had immigrated to the United States, killed three people.
 In contrast, the 2012 killings carried out by Wade Michael Page – a white man – at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin that left six people dead, received just 3.8 percent of coverage.
 A mass shooting by Dylann Roof of nine people in an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina received 7.42 percent of the coverage while a 2014 attack by Glenn Miller on a synagogue in Kansas killed three people but only received 3.27 percent of the media attention.
“When President Trump asserted that the media does not cover some terrorist attacks enough, it turns out that he was correct,” the authors said. “However, his assertion that attacks by Muslim perpetrators received less coverage is unsubstantiated.”
 “Beyond just the quantity of coverage, it is also important to analyze the content of what is said. Might media be reticent to use the term ‘terrorist’ to describe some attackers? How do casualty rates report the way that media discusses attacks? When is speculation about the perpetrator’s mental health more prevalen?"

Sorce:
http://www.arabnews.com/node/1124141/saudi-arabia

      George Sand
   by
   Francis Leary
   More than 100 years ago, George Sand was one of the best-known people of the day.  George wrote stories that were very popular.  In all, George Sand wrote over 100 books and was one of the best-selling authors of the day.  George was friends with most of the great artists and authors.
   George Sand's real name was Aurore Dudevant.  She was born and raised in France.  Her father died when she was young, and Aurore learned early to be independent.
   This spirit of independence stayed with her all her life.  And it marked her as different from most women of her time.  Women were expected to obey first their fathers and then their husbands.  Even the law gave a husband complete control over his wife and any property she might have.
   But Aurore dare to speak out.  She was too free and too sure of herself to allow herself to be controlled by any person.
   She set out to make a life of her own.  As a child, Aurore had always loved reading.  Soon she turned to writing.  By the time she was 28 years old, Aurore had sold her first novel, Indiana.  The book, printed under the name George Sand, began Aurore's lifelong career as an author.
   At first her free spirit kept her poor.  But by the time she had written her third book, Lelia, George began to accumulate wealth and fame.  She worked hard and kept on a strict schedule, writing about 3000 words daily.  When she had to, George could complete a novel in a month.
   Her own life made her fight for women's rights.  In a number of newspaper articles, she charged that women of her time were kept poorly educated on purpose.  She demanded property rights for women and the right of divorce.  In her writings and in her home, where she gathered poets, painters, musicians and politicians, she kept up her fight for women's rights.
   George was the most well-known woman of her day.  She could count as friends the great minds of her time.  With her strong, straight-forward style, George Sand could not be ignored.
   She died at the height of her fame on a June morning in 1876, her last novel unfinished.  She had been the first woman of her age to be both a great writer and great champion of women's equality.  As Gustave Flaubert, a great French novelist, wrote, "She will remain one of the splendors of France and a unique glory."


Albarra's response:
She changed her full name because women couldn't be allowed to write their books.

So, if you are a Christian and you drink alcohol for just small amount of liquid, you would get some health risks, according to scientists.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/even-moderate-drinking-could-harm-the-brain/

In Islam, drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden, but Christianity does not.

Here is a video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O37oA1gxxA4

As-salam alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

I have some problem with an anti-Muslim user about emancipating slaves. He said that Muhammad (phub) did not emancipate some slaves. Here are some example:

Narrated Kuraib:


the freed slave of Ibn `Abbas, that Maimuna bint Al-Harith told him that she manumitted a slave-girl without taking the permission of the Prophet. On the day when it was her turn to be with the Prophet, she said, "Do you know, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), that I have manumitted my slave-girl?" He said, "Have you really?" She replied in the affirmative. He said, "You would have got more reward if you had given her (i.e. the slave-girl) to one of your maternal uncles."
Sahih Bukhari Vol. 3, Book 47, Hadith 765

So it would be a better reward to give a slave girl to a family member instead of emancipating her.

and

'Imran b. Husain reported that a person who had no other property emancipated six slaves of his at the time of his death. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) called for them and divided them into three sections, cast lots amongst them, and set two free and kept four in slavery; and he (the Holy Prophet) spoke severely of him.
Sahih Muslim Book 15, Hadith 4112

Basically, Muhammad (phub) freed 2 slaves, but he kept 4 slaves. He later spoke severely of him. Why?

How would you refute these 2 hadith.