A compilation of all the debate material concerning whether Islam allows sex with prepubescent girls.
David Wood is found wanting in this debate. Wood argues for the position that "Islam does allow sex with prepubescent girls" While Snow argues against him.
Wood had no evidence and was caught lying about Tafsir.
Snow proves from Islamic sources that Islam does not allow sex with prepubescent girls.
The debate is in chronological order, four parts.
Part 1: Wood starts the ball rolling by claiming "Islam CERTAINLY allows sex with prepubescent girls"
Part 2: Snow challenges him on this and brings evidence to show he is wrong.
Part 3: Wood is found wanting and distorts Tafsir in order to try and prove his case. He asks Snow for references concerning part 2.
Part 4: Snow delivers a devastating blow. He gives references and brings more evidence to disprove Wood. He exposes Wood's misquoting and distorting of tafseer literature and points to the fact that Wood has shown no evidence for his claim.
Quote of the debate (by Yahya Snow): "David Wood brought a pen knife to a gun fight (a very small pen knife)"
Part 1: David makes his claim. by writing:
"Islam certainly allows sex with prepubescent girls"
Part 2: Yahya Snow challenges him and disproves his claim.
Part 3: Wood Responds by bringing his own interpretation of the Quran and changing tafseer literature. Wood simply leaves himself open and Snow finishes him off in the final exchange.
Part 4: Yahya Snow ends the debate in spectacular fashion by disproving Wood with evidences, showing Wood to have no evidence for his claim and exposing the deceit and distortions which Wood presented.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Snow delivers a devastating blow. He gives references and brings more evidence to disprove Wood
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!
Yahya,
Taking someone ELSES debate videos, cutting them up, and splicing in your voice, does NOT constitute you winning in a debate with them!! lol
@anonymous
It is a copy and paste from my other blogspot blog
The reason why I decided to put it together into one post is due to Muslims emailing me after discovering Wood's response to me and asking me to respond even though I have already responded
I have done the same with my discussion with Shamoun on John 1
It is important to WATCH the videos...note the emphasis on the word "watch"
anonymous, if you watch the video you will realise there is no slicing of "soneone else's debate videos" and nor is there any cutting up etc
Why is it that the anons always come out when Wood or Shamoun are mentioned?
David (or whoever you maybe)...you can use your actual ID
Now "anon", ask yourself...would Wood/Shamoun allow your negative comments or would they censor them
Think about it
Peace
Now "anon", ask yourself...would Wood/Shamoun allow your negative comments or would they censor them
Ohhh brother, trust me, i have thought about it real hard, many many times. They most certainly would, and if you go to their blogs, you will notice what vile they let Muslims post all over their site.
And im not david wood, i would use my nickname, but in the past i have posted on your site with my nick about white and all of my comments were erased by you. Besides, i dont trust writing my password in your blog, it sees really fishy as my antivirus goes of if im on the site longer than 15 min.
and my COMMENTs may be NEGATIVE towards YOU, but in no way are they BAD as you try to paint (not unlike the swearing filthy mouthed muslims who post on here)
criticism is not the same thing as insulting and swearing towards people
@anon
You seem a little paranoid
It ia a blogspot site...the same as brother David Wood's blog so please feel free to disclose your handle...those nast Muslims can't get at you...unless blogspot is in with the Muslims:)
In any case , your comments were not offering critique but flimsy ridicule...ubiquitous, when it comes to the net, YT is awash with that sort of stuff:(
I have a number of complaints from people regarding Wood's censorship...so Wood seems to be pulling the wool over your eyes if you really believe him to be this paragon of free speech
As for Shamoun. the less said the better...his middle name is "censor"
Talking about brother Sam Shamoun, here is his latest sermon:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/07/sam-shamouns-foul-mouth-continues-with.html
Pt. 1
Yahya,
Is this an attempt to beef up your apologetic resume? Not only does the way this all transpired with David not amount to a debate, but your commentary is once again a case of self-serving flattery that isn't at all commensurate with reality as should be obvious to anyone who will not just take your word for it and will actually take the time to listen to all of the videos. In short, not only did you not engage Dr. Wood in any debate, and not only do I not think your bombastic claims of having routed David in your video ramblings are true, but you would never in your wildest imagination of being an apologist do so.
Yes, I state that confidently not only on the basis that you have refused to debate Sam numerous times now, even though your claim that Muslims should have nothing to do with him is openly exposed as disingenuous since you can't seem to stop bringing up Sam and writing "refutations" of his material (either), but because you have created an alternate reality where you get to make “responses” to his (and others) material and then pretend, on the basis of one slanderous spin job after another attacking his (and others) character(s), that it would be inappropriate to have anything to do with him (and others who have challenged you).
Furthermore, you have refused to debate me on a number of issues: such as the Trinity in the Old Testament; the identity of the Malak Yahweh; and, interestingly enough since you brought it up, you even altogether aborted trying to respond to my comments on John 1, even though I wrote it on Sam's behalf since he was busy at the time. (And by the way, I would be only too willing to resurrect that discussion as I have much more to say on it that I was leaving for your possible response, which never materialized.)
Pt. 2
To be quite honest, I have been waiting for you to trump up something about me so you can also have an excuse for why you keep turning down my challenges.
The topics I have challenged you on are, at least in the case of the Trinity and the Malak Yahweh, both subjects that you have brought up on your blog. In fact, both of them were related to Sam. The first regarded his debate with Farhan Qureshi on the Trinity in the Old Testament, and the second had reference to his paltalk lectures on the Malak Yahweh. Since your excuse for not debating Sam on these issues has been that Muslims should have nothing to do with him since he will bring up embarassing material from the Qur'an and Sunnah if Muslims speak blasphemously about the Lord Jesus, then what is your excuse for not debating me.
You see, this seems to me to point up the real reason you will not debate Sam. If the reason for not debating Sam is because of his (alleged) bad behavior, then why won't you debate me? You can't say it is because I said Muhammad is a pedophile for bedding a 9 year old child. It can't be because I pointed out the lurid and perverted nature of the Islamic paradise. It can't be because I spoke of the crude manner by which the Qur'an speaks of the virginal conception of Christ. It can't be because I mentioned that the Sirah literature says Abu Bakr had a dirty mouth and was not above telling pagans to go suck the clitoris and nipples of Allah's daughters. It can't be because of any of this because I haven't yet brought up any of these issues. (Well, I did point out at AM once before that the Sirah literature refers to "nipples" whereas some of the other sources also tell us he mentioned "clitoris", but at the time I was just making a factual observation and was not drawing any conclusions, if I recall correctly.)
Pt. 3
You see, all of this makes it appear like you were just coming up with an excuse not to debate Sam. Otherwise you would not have refused to debate me on these subjects since you can't lay any of the above at my door step. I would not have done a better job debating you than Sam, and so if your reason for not debating him had nothing to do with knowing that you really don't have a strong enough case, then you would have every reason to debate me and no reason not to.
Oh, but I don't really need to infer all of this, do I? After all, you admitted on another thread and via youtube messages to me (all of which I have saved since you have a habit of erasing things), that you don't think you are qualified to address these subjects in a debate with me. Of course I knew that before I challenged you to debate these things (as did Sam). And that is also why I knew in advance that you would not accept my challenges. And that, to finish out my comments, is why I know the real reason you won’t debate Sam and that it has nothing to do with the excuses you have made repeatedly. You won’t debate Sam for the simple reason that you know he can expose your arguments. If you won’t debate me because you are (by your own admission) ill-equipped to do so, then you certainly won’t debate Sam. For this reason, you should stop writing stuff in response to Sam altogether. Quit pretending like you are a force to be reckoned with. You simply are not.
I should have said "and David" at the end of my last post. Your little obsession with Sam and David is already old. Either have nothing to do with them or quit declining the debate challenges that you instigate and provoke by constantly attacking them.
What happened to all my posts, Yahya?
Well, here they are again.
----------------
1/3
Yahya,
Is this an attempt to beef up your apologetic resume? Not only does the way this all transpired with David not amount to a debate, but your commentary is once again a case of self-serving flattery that isn't at all commensurate with reality as should be obvious to anyone who will not just take your word for it and will actually take the time to listen to all of the videos. In short, not only did you not engage Dr. Wood in any debate, and not only do I not think your bombastic claims of having routed David in your video ramblings are true, but you would never in your wildest imagination of being an apologist do so.
Yes, I state that confidently not only on the basis that you have refused to debate Sam numerous times now, even though your claim that Muslims should have nothing to do with him is openly exposed as disingenuous since you can't seem to stop bringing up Sam and writing "refutations" of his material (either), but because you have created an alternate reality where you get to make “responses” to his (and others) material and then pretend, on the basis of one slanderous spin job after another attacking his (and others) character(s), that it would be inappropriate to have anything to do with him (and others who have challenged you).
Furthermore, you have refused to debate me on a number of issues: such as the Trinity in the Old Testament; the identity of the Malak Yahweh; and, interestingly enough since you brought it up, you even altogether aborted trying to respond to my comments on John 1, even though I wrote it on Sam's behalf since he was busy at the time. (And by the way, I would be only too willing to resurrect that discussion as I have much more to say on it that I was leaving for your possible response, which never materialized.)
What happened to all my posts, Yahya?
Well, here they are again.
----------------
1/3
Yahya,
Is this an attempt to beef up your apologetic resume? Not only does the way this all transpired with David not amount to a debate, but your commentary is once again a case of self-serving flattery that isn't at all commensurate with reality as should be obvious to anyone who will not just take your word for it and will actually take the time to listen to all of the videos. In short, not only did you not engage Dr. Wood in any debate, and not only do I not think your bombastic claims of having routed David in your video ramblings are true, but you would never in your wildest imagination of being an apologist do so.
Yes, I state that confidently not only on the basis that you have refused to debate Sam numerous times now, even though your claim that Muslims should have nothing to do with him is openly exposed as disingenuous since you can't seem to stop bringing up Sam and writing "refutations" of his material (either), but because you have created an alternate reality where you get to make “responses” to his (and others) material and then pretend, on the basis of one slanderous spin job after another attacking his (and others) character(s), that it would be inappropriate to have anything to do with him (and others who have challenged you).
Furthermore, you have refused to debate me on a number of issues: such as the Trinity in the Old Testament; the identity of the Malak Yahweh; and, interestingly enough since you brought it up, you even altogether aborted trying to respond to my comments on John 1, even though I wrote it on Sam's behalf since he was busy at the time. (And by the way, I would be only too willing to resurrect that discussion as I have much more to say on it that I was leaving for your possible response, which never materialized.)
What happened to all my posts, Yahya?
Well, here they are again.
----------------
1/3
Yahya,
Is this an attempt to beef up your apologetic resume? Not only does the way this all transpired with David not amount to a debate, but your commentary is once again a case of self-serving flattery that isn't at all commensurate with reality as should be obvious to anyone who will not just take your word for it and will actually take the time to listen to all of the videos. In short, not only did you not engage Dr. Wood in any debate, and not only do I not think your bombastic claims of having routed David in your video ramblings are true, but you would never in your wildest imagination of being an apologist do so.
Yes, I state that confidently not only on the basis that you have refused to debate Sam numerous times now, even though your claim that Muslims should have nothing to do with him is openly exposed as disingenuous since you can't seem to stop bringing up Sam and writing "refutations" of his material (either), but because you have created an alternate reality where you get to make “responses” to his (and others) material and then pretend, on the basis of one slanderous spin job after another attacking his (and others) character(s), that it would be inappropriate to have anything to do with him (and others who have challenged you).
Furthermore, you have refused to debate me on a number of issues: such as the Trinity in the Old Testament; the identity of the Malak Yahweh; and, interestingly enough since you brought it up, you even altogether aborted trying to respond to my comments on John 1, even though I wrote it on Sam's behalf since he was busy at the time. (And by the way, I would be only too willing to resurrect that discussion as I have much more to say on it that I was leaving for your possible response, which never materialized.)
What happened to all my posts, Yahya?
Well, here they are again.
----------------
1/3
Yahya,
Is this an attempt to beef up your apologetic resume? Not only does the way this all transpired with David not amount to a debate, but your commentary is once again a case of self-serving flattery that isn't at all commensurate with reality as should be obvious to anyone who will not just take your word for it and will actually take the time to listen to all of the videos. In short, not only did you not engage Dr. Wood in any debate, and not only do I not think your bombastic claims of having routed David in your video ramblings are true, but you would never in your wildest imagination of being an apologist do so.
Yes, I state that confidently not only on the basis that you have refused to debate Sam numerous times now, even though your claim that Muslims should have nothing to do with him is openly exposed as disingenuous since you can't seem to stop bringing up Sam and writing "refutations" of his material (either), but because you have created an alternate reality where you get to make “responses” to his (and others) material and then pretend, on the basis of one slanderous spin job after another attacking his (and others) character(s), that it would be inappropriate to have anything to do with him (and others who have challenged you).
Furthermore, you have refused to debate me on a number of issues: such as the Trinity in the Old Testament; the identity of the Malak Yahweh; and, interestingly enough since you brought it up, you even altogether aborted trying to respond to my comments on John 1, even though I wrote it on Sam's behalf since he was busy at the time. (And by the way, I would be only too willing to resurrect that discussion as I have much more to say on it that I was leaving for your possible response, which never materialized.)
2/3
To be quite honest, I have been waiting for you to trump up something about me so you can also have an excuse for why you keep turning down my challenges.
The topics I have challenged you on are, at least in the case of the Trinity and the Malak Yahweh, both subjects that you have brought up on your blog. In fact, both of them were related to Sam. The first regarded his debate with Farhan Qureshi on the Trinity in the Old Testament, and the second had reference to his paltalk lectures on the Malak Yahweh. Since your excuse for not debating Sam on these issues has been that Muslims should have nothing to do with him since he will bring up embarassing material from the Qur'an and Sunnah if Muslims speak blasphemously about the Lord Jesus, then what is your excuse for not debating me.
You see, this seems to me to point up the real reason you will not debate Sam. If the reason for not debating Sam is because of his (alleged) bad behavior, then why won't you debate me? You can't say it is because I said Muhammad is a pedophile for bedding a 9 year old child. It can't be because I pointed out the lurid and perverted nature of the Islamic paradise. It can't be because I spoke of the crude manner by which the Qur'an speaks of the virginal conception of Christ. It can't be because I mentioned that the Sirah literature says Abu Bakr had a dirty mouth and was not above telling pagans to go suck the clitoris and nipples of Allah's daughters. It can't be because of any of this because I haven't yet brought up any of these issues. (Well, I did point out at AM once before that the Sirah literature refers to "nipples" whereas some of the other sources also tell us he mentioned "clitoris", but at the time I was just making a factual observation and was not drawing any conclusions, if I recall correctly.)
You see, all of this makes it appear like you were just coming up with an excuse not to debate Sam. Otherwise you would not have refused to debate me on these subjects since you can't lay any of the above at my door step. I would not have done a better job debating you than Sam, and so if your reason for not debating him had nothing to do with knowing that you really don't have a strong enough case, then you would have every reason to debate me and no reason not to.
2/3
To be quite honest, I have been waiting for you to trump up something about me so you can also have an excuse for why you keep turning down my challenges.
The topics I have challenged you on are, at least in the case of the Trinity and the Malak Yahweh, both subjects that you have brought up on your blog. In fact, both of them were related to Sam. The first regarded his debate with Farhan Qureshi on the Trinity in the Old Testament, and the second had reference to his paltalk lectures on the Malak Yahweh. Since your excuse for not debating Sam on these issues has been that Muslims should have nothing to do with him since he will bring up embarassing material from the Qur'an and Sunnah if Muslims speak blasphemously about the Lord Jesus, then what is your excuse for not debating me.
You see, this seems to me to point up the real reason you will not debate Sam. If the reason for not debating Sam is because of his (alleged) bad behavior, then why won't you debate me? You can't say it is because I said Muhammad is a pedophile for bedding a 9 year old child. It can't be because I pointed out the lurid and perverted nature of the Islamic paradise. It can't be because I spoke of the crude manner by which the Qur'an speaks of the virginal conception of Christ. It can't be because I mentioned that the Sirah literature says Abu Bakr had a dirty mouth and was not above telling pagans to go suck the clitoris and nipples of Allah's daughters. It can't be because of any of this because I haven't yet brought up any of these issues. (Well, I did point out at AM once before that the Sirah literature refers to "nipples" whereas some of the other sources also tell us he mentioned "clitoris", but at the time I was just making a factual observation and was not drawing any conclusions, if I recall correctly.)
You see, all of this makes it appear like you were just coming up with an excuse not to debate Sam. Otherwise you would not have refused to debate me on these subjects since you can't lay any of the above at my door step. I would not have done a better job debating you than Sam, and so if your reason for not debating him had nothing to do with knowing that you really don't have a strong enough case, then you would have every reason to debate me and no reason not to.
3/3
Oh, but I don't really need to infer all of this, do I? After all, you admitted on another thread and via youtube messages to me (all of which I have saved since you have a habit of erasing things), that you don't think you are qualified to address these subjects in a debate with me. Of course I knew that before I challenged you to debate these things (as did Sam). And that is also why I knew in advance that you would not accept my challenges. And that, to finish out my comments, is why I know the real reason you won’t debate Sam and that it has nothing to do with the excuses you have made repeatedly. You won’t debate Sam for the simple reason that you know he can expose your arguments. If you won’t debate me because you are (by your own admission) ill-equipped to do so, then you certainly won’t debate Sam. For this reason, you should stop writing stuff in response to Sam altogether. Quit pretending like you are a force to be reckoned with. You simply are not.
mr anthony rogers, seriously how many times are you going to post the same comments? Hm it seems you believe telling a lie enough times and eventually the weak minded will believe it!! Also it seems you and sam are obsessed with yahya not the other way round. Look at the thread with 97 comments,sam as usual starts of like a deranged nutter but by the end it seems like he is grovelling to yahya for a fresh start!! hahaha it seems like mr shameless cant take any more humiliating exposures.
Maratsafin,
My posts went missing and suddenly showed up again after being reposted.
But what have I to do with you anyway? You are even less of a force to be reckoned with than yahya.
anthony ,
What is the basis of your ranting and raving?
You claim Prophet Muhammad(saw) was a pedophile as he married Aishah(ra) and consummated their marriage when she was 9 yrs old? You have a couple of problems with such claim ;
(1) Pedophiles don't marry but go around raping kids. Any historical fact that Prophet Muhammad(saw) did such thing?
Per your logic , can I conclude that the christian god in the OT was / is a pedophile because of its share of virgins or 'woman not who had never slept with a man' in num31:40?
(2) exe16:7-8 attest that it is OK to marry / consummate marriage when the girl has attained puberty. '..this specific parable present the marriageable age of a girl..Ezekiel 16:4-14..' article by sam shamoun (http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/marriage_age.htm)
According to your bible , Prophet Muhammad(saw) did no wrong as Aishah(ra) had already attained puberty when her family was still in mekkah , '..I had seen my parents following Islam since I attained the age of puberty..The chiefs of the Quraish pagans became afraid of that (i.e. that their children and women might be affected by the recitation of Quran)."..'.(bukhari vol 1 bk 8 no 465)
TQ guy , you condemn Prophet Muhammad(saw) marriage to Aishah(ra) you condemn your own bible of eze16:7-8.
What is wrong with the 'Islamic Paradise'? Isn't sex something natural between males & females? What is your issue? In paradise we are not bound by same rules on earth. Are you implying that if we have sex in paradise its wrong as it is in the presence of god?? Then you christians are in trouble ;
(1) when you christians have sex with you wives , girlfriends , prostitutes , male partners ; isn't god all seeing?
(2) you claim that your god , the 'holy spirit' is in you. You know what this imply? Your god in you is also 'doing it' to your god in your sex partners.
Show us where in the Quran that of the so called '..crude manner by which the Qur'an speaks of the virginal conception of Christ..'. Utilising your logic does this mean the 'holy spirit' raped biblical mary? luk1:35 '..The Holy Spirit will COME UPON YOU , and the POWER of the Most High will OVERSHADOW you..'. What do you understand when a man 'COME UPON' a woman and his 'POWER OVERSHADOW' the woman? Don't know about you but most people will call it rape.
You have a problem with Abu Bakr(ra) cursing? Isn't that the same like you christians cursing each other with '..F**k this and that..'? What has it got to do with the Quran?
Following your logic , can I assume that the bible teaches
(1) incest , example given in gen38:16 , biblical judah / tamar.
(2) to 'visit' prostitutes , jud16:1-3
Why are you posturing like a over sized peacock with comments like '..You are even less of a force to be reckoned with than yahya..'. Its either you have the facts or not. So far you have none.
Are you implying that if we have sex in paradise its wrong as it is in the presence of god?
You actually think that you will need or even want sex in heaven? Are you kidding me? heaven is earth, earth is heaven, which is it?! Seems like the same exact thing except for the everlasting erections and huri machines.
luk1:35 '..The Holy Spirit will COME UPON YOU , and the POWER of the Most High will OVERSHADOW you..'. What do you understand when a man 'COME UPON' a woman and his 'POWER OVERSHADOW' the woman?
MY GOD MY GOD FORGIVE THIS MUSLIM FOR HIS BLASPHEMY AGAINST YOUR SPIRIT!
Sam1528,
Talk about "ranting and raving"; I did not assert/argue for or against any of the propositions you responded to. I am sorry you waisted your time. Concentrate on improving your reading comprehension and we will talk again sometime, Lord willing.
anthony ,
Its either you have the facts or you don't have it. Which one is it?
Your needless posturing betray the fact that you are all show but no substance.
You know where to find us when you need 'to talk sometime'
test
mrsonic,
Since Mr. Rogers has already asked your partners in crime to pipe down so he can talk to Yahya, I will be happy to talk with you so that Yahya doesn't get distracted.
First, I have a question: Were you born stupid or did you convert to Islam?
Second, since you probably won't understand that, I'll ask another question: Is there an argument somewhere buried beneath all your execrable blasphemy? If so, please lay out the premises.
Fill in the following blanks and I will be happy to respond. Try your best to make it look like an argument and show that you aren't dependent on making emotive statements that show just how much you hate the living God and how dark your heart is.
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
Conclusion:
By the way, your last question was as good a proof that you are a dufus as one could ask for.
You asked what I think the religious leaders would do if Jesus claimed to be God. Duh...I think they would crucify Him. QED
@Anthony
You can speculate as to my rejection of debate proposals or you can wait for me to produce a blog article highlighting the reasoning behind my decision making
Peace
@Anthony
You can speculate as to my rejection of debate proposals or you can wait for me to produce a blog article highlighting the reasoning behind my decision making
Peace
Yahya,
I really don't need to speculate, now do I? I already have your reason from your own lips. I just like to make sure all the people who come here aren't fooled by all your hefty claims. And you should be embarrassed that your blaspheming buddies (maratsafin and mrsonic) and the guy who can't read think they are prepared to debate when you are not.
@Anthony
"Buddies"...that is news to me
I allow everybody to comment on my site (inculding your blaspheming buddy Sam Shamoun)
So please stop with the erroneous conflation of commentators and "buddies"
When I get time I may respond to your piece on the angel
Be patient, I plan to answer your questions on my blog in a post dedicated to housekeeping
PS I'm surprised I have not seen you trying to defend Shamoun's latest bout of poor behaviour
I guess you jus can't defend the indefensible
Peace
Yahya,
I'm happy to see you distance yourself from those two characters (and I hope they take note of it). It's still a shame they fancy themselves more prepared than their champion thinks he is.
You appeal to my patience, but some of the issues you are hoping will get buried beneath your personal attacks on David and Sam are many months old now.
Your personal attacks on Sam have gotten boring. Either debate him or stop writing hit and run pieces where you pretend you have vanquished him.
I'm not holding my breath on a response from you on the Malak Yahweh paper I wrote. You promised that would be here weeks ago (before you busied youself once again attacking David and Sam). Just like it has been six or so months since you went silent on our John 1 discussion.
@Anthony
Stop with your sensationalism...please
I believe merely reporting on the activities of Wood and Shamoun is recognised as journalism (I noted Wood's recent claim of "journalism", if it is good enough for the goose...)
Please stop portraying me in a poor light for simply writing about the debauched activities of your employers/colleagues (Wood and Shamoun)
So if you want these "hit and run" pieces to grind to a halt then you should advise them on how to behave
It is a shame you are still reluctant to distance yourself from the aforementioned twosome
As for the John1 dialogue, it was a two way event between myself and Shamoun and for some reason you decided to involve yourself - perhaps you felt Shamoun was struggling
Sure John 1 is an unfinished dialogue but lets not forget the particulars around it
As for the angel of the Lord response....did I REALLY promise it "would be here weeks ago"? Or are you using some "artistic freedom" within your commenting, Anthony? :)
In any case have you taken up the suggestion of TheGrandVerbalizer and thrown your liberal debate challenges in the way of those recommended to you by TGV?
Whilst you await my blog post answering some of your questions/posts related to my reluctance to debate you could be getting on with TGV's suggestion
My suggestion would be for you to rebuke Sam Shamoun in order to show some consistency whilst you're waiting
My sensationalism? What a hoot. Have I announced a "New Evangelical Scandal" because a Muslim blasphemed and had it fed back to him? Have I announced a "Debate" that never took place and announced myself the victor when all that is far from what happened?
I'm not sure why you are referring to anyone as my employers unless it is just more of your sensationalism, but I don't get paid for what I do. As for your journalism claim, not only is this ad hoc in your case, but your interest came only after being refuted by David and Sam. In other words, "If I can't refute them without looking silly, then I will create drama and will make it look like they are involved in some big scandal."
As for the discussion on the Malak Yahweh, you said you would respond weeks ago. No question about it.
I don't know what you mean about TGV's liberal debate challenges.
Anthony your pals Wood and Shamoun have not refted me, stop re-writing history
You are full of sensationalism
Wow, you are not concerned your co-religionist (Shamoun) is going ape in a frenzy of hatred???
Can you show me PROOF of my "promise" regarding the response (ie to ....did I REALLY promise it "would be here weeks ago")? No you can't, you are simply making flimsy claims without any solid thought or evidence behind them
This is all getting rather futile...please wait for my blog post
Bye
By the way, in your post try and keep the ad hom's to a minimum. And if you can't help yourself and must attack someone, please direct your fury at me and leave David and Sam out of it. Thanks.
(inculding your blaspheming buddy Sam Shamoun)
Wow, is Mr Snow saying Muhammad is God here?
I believe merely reporting on the activities of Wood and Shamoun is recognised as journalism (I noted Wood's recent claim of "journalism", if it is good enough for the goose...)
Interesting, do you have your own TV show Yahya?
Anthony your pals Wood and Shamoun have not refted me, stop re-writing history
In my opinion, they RIFTED you. And that is probably why you deleted Anthony's comment also...
I say be not far from us, when we're surrounded on every side by lions and thieves. Lift us up to heights un-crowded, and lead us on to victory. Deliver us Jah from Babylon, empty our shelter throughout the storm. Deliver us from this wickedness; the Lion of Judah shall conquer them. I know His Majesty will conquer them, lift us up and carry us away!
No surprises there - Yahya erased my post that referred to his lying. That's Okay, Yahya, old pal...eventually many more people will see it when I respond to the post you are "promising" to put up.
Thanks for pointing that out, Anonymousing. I probably wouldn't have checked back here otherwise.
anonymousing and Anthony
:)
Post a Comment