Sunday, 19 May 2013

Ergun Caner, James White’s Friend, Samuel Green, Paul Williams and John Ankerberg

How’s that for name dropping?!

Ergun Caner is having a tough month. He is being lambasted for misleading folk about Sharia:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/latest-ergun-caner-is-back-lying.html

Despite having re-emerged on John Ankerberg’s show Ergun and Emir Caner are still feeling the pinch. Ergun’s tweeting of his ‘innocence’ of the charges levelled at him have been subjected to discussion to say the least.

Ergun Caner has fallen deeper than first thought

James White of AOMIN was looking for a hero to step up and tackle Ergun Caner:

His words, and actions, speak for themselves, in light of the overwhelming documentation. This is not mere self-deception. A wolf is amongst the sheep. Shepherds, where are you? "Discernment" ministries---where are you? Arlington Baptist College---where are you?

Well,he got somebody to tackle John Ankerberg. Here is what this chap wrote to John Ankerberg concerning the Caner brothers:

I am sorry to say but as hard as I try to take what these guys say seriously I can't in light of the documented lies of Ergun Caner, and his refusal to accept responsibility. It seems that you, John Ankerberg, are more interested in people with degrees in order to cater to the already convinced, i.e. you are preaching to the choir, since Muslims won't take these shows seriously in light of the scandal surrounding Ergun. And besides, he didn't even answer your question here.

It gets mindboggling when you realise who actually made such a comment – James White’s nutty friend/teacher Sam Shamoun!

Sam Shamoun has ahistory of vile behaviour,  amateurism, stupid argumentation and outright dishonesty. No Muslim takes Shamoun seriously. O Ergun, how low have you fallen to be condemned by folk such as Shamoun!

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if James White’s buddy was simply trying to pave the way for himself to take over Ergun’s role on the show. His comment about ‘people with degrees’ seems quite telling. Perhaps it’s him projecting his frustrations of having taught James White Christian apologetics against Islam, yet the only one who is publishing a book about Islam here is White. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shamoun puts this down to his own lack of educational background. It’s quite an interesting dynamic, the student pitches up and leaves the teacher in the shadows.

Paul Williams shows Samuel Green the way

Shamoun was playing the troll, became insulting and was sharply rebuked for his abuse by Paul Williams:

Sam Shamoun posted a comment here to Yahya Snow which I have trashed. It contained too many personal insults and was one long rant against Snow. Sam was banned from my blog before due to his foul mouthed tirades and is on the verge of being banned again if his manners do not drastically improve.

It was easy for Paul Williams. It didn't take years of badgering to see Paul condemn Shamoun's troll-like manner so what's up with Samuel Green and James White?
 
Samuel Green’s absolute refusal to publicly address Sam Shamoun both in this YouTube commentsection (Sam is under the handle – shamounian) and elsewhere have been mystifying until now. Somebody commented that Samuel’s reluctance was due to Samuel using Shamoun’s argumentation for debates.

However I speculate something completely different. I wouldn’t be surprised if White and Green  are reluctant as they don’t want Shamoun’s faith to be challenged. Let me explain, a few comments by Shamoun indicate that he believes a difference of opinion (disagreement) with your co-religionist/s means one is on the path to leaving their faith. Paul Williams of Blogging Theology was in fact subjected to the manifestation of this mindset (of Shamoun's) here and I’d imagine elsewhere too.

This leaves one wondering about Sam Shamoun, how strong is the bloke’s faith? Perhaps White and Green think it could go rather grey if he is addressed publicly hence their absolute refusal to challenge him

Shepherds, where are you? "Discernment" ministries---where are you?

I think the ‘shepherds’ and ‘discernment ministries’ may be worried about losing one of their sheep if they make a move…

Note to John Ankerberg

If you are looking to ditch Ergun Caner (which you should be) then please do not throw in the Ergun Caner look-alike - this amateur called Sam Shamoun. His level of argumentation is just as deplorable as Ergun’s, check his most recent argument out here – he is  wrongly trying to convince folk that Islam is polytheistic – not even Ergun Caner is that barmy.

Here’s an amazing idea, how about you get a Muslim scholar on your show to learn about Islam. I think even Christians are tired of seeing evangelical kooks being dressed up as ‘experts on Islam’. Let me name drop, Hamza Yusuf, Yasir Qadhi, Dr Abdullah Hakim Quick, Zaid Shakir, Dr Shabir Ally, Ali Ataie etc…
 
 

71 comments:

Anthony Rogers said...

I know there is a good chance that you will erase this comment just like you erased AN ENTIRE BLOG POST where I exposed your folly in attempting to defend the confused and confusing idea of Tawhid, but I will give it a go anyway. Besides, I only have a quick point to make:

If Muslims don't take Sam seriously, is there any good reason that ALL of MDI, as well as lone rangers like you, Paul Williams, and countless others run from debating Sam? It can't be because he can be easily trounced and so isn't worth your time. After all, Williams for example won't debate James White but he has no problem arguing with teenage girls at Speaker's Corner and then showcasing it on his blog. You guys have shown repeatedly by your actions that you love to prey on the weak, but you run from the battle with your tails tucked between your legs when a real opponent is on the scene.

The claim that Sam is not to be taken seriously is especially puzzling when we consider that many of you guys can't seem to get Sam's name out of your mouths? YOU, especially YOU, seem to eat, sleep, and breath all things Shamoun. Quit pretending that Sam is not the man you all fear most and start acting like it by ignoring him and directing your hate somewhere else. Until you can do that, I am afraid that we must conclude that the Snowman is just blowing hot air.

Anonymous said...

Triple b

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
bloggingtheology said...

Anthony Rogers, you really talk rubbish sometimes,

'You guys have shown repeatedly by your actions that you love to prey on the weak, but you run from the battle with your tails tucked between your legs when a real opponent is on the scene.'

On 21st February, representing MDI, I shared a platform at Cambridge University with the former Archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, Lord Williams, to discuss 'Jesus in Islam and Christianity'. He was also a professor of Christian Theology at Oxford University.

I agree with Ijaz Ahmad who said on my blog yesterday:

'Sam Shamoun is desperate for a debate because no serious Muslim apologist would care to fall for his trap. He is frankly too immature and too infantile to hold a discussion without spewing insults from his tongue.

Br. Yahya, have Sam undergo psychiatric evaluation on his mental stability before even thinking about going into a debate with him. He cannot debate. Sam Shamoun needs someone to mock, insult and curse to magnify his bravado and to impress his herd.
Sam, if you really want someone to debate, why not debate a Christian academic on Textual Criticism, or Soteriology, rather than fight Muslims when we use your own scholarship against you? The truth is, Christian scholars are embarrassed by you, Muslim da’ees rather debate educated people and the lay people are tired of your rancor and petulant behaviour.'

Anthony Rogers said...

Bringing up Lord Williams was a strategic mistake. It gives the lie to your error-laden criteria for how you select debate opponents. You have no academic standing or credibility in the wider academic community. This is your stated reason for not engaging competent Christian apologists in public debate. Given that, you should not have thought yourself a worthy opponent of Lord Williams; you also should question his judgment given his willingness to debate you, a man of no standing. By your own actions of engaging in debate with Lord Williams but refusing to debate James White or Sam Shamoun who are well-informed and experienced apologists, you condemn yourself as a hypocrite. Your trumped up criteria is nothing more than a makeshift for getting out of debates you know won't go well for you. As long as you don't live up to your own rhetoric and thus show that you yourself hold all your talking to be just so much rubbish...you can be sure I won't flinch when you make empty assertions about the "rubbish" I talk and have no trouble living up to.

Also, it is more than a little bit ironic that you would cite Ijaz Ahmad to back your play given that we consider him to be of so disreputable a character and of such little account that we have largely ignored him after a handful of interactions. This is something Yahya can't seem to do vis-a-vis Sam even though he considers Sam's no nonsense approach to Islamic dawaganda so disagreeable.

bloggingtheology said...

Rogers are you determined to embarrass yourself in public?

I choose not to debate loons like Shamoun and bigots like ‘Dr’ White. I am not an academic and have never claimed to be one - so your points miss the target.

I was invited by Cambridge University Islamic Society to have a civilized discussion about 'Jesus in Islam and Christianity'. I am certainly no equal to Lord Williams as my post on the the invitation made crystal clear. Lord Williams is an extremely well informed debater and apologist he has written numerous books on Christianity and has an impressive knowledge of Islamic Scholarship. Besides him White and Shamoun are like stunted pygmies beside a great Giant. Anyway, the event went very well indeed by all accounts. I see no reason to think Cambridge's choice of speakers was in a way unsatisfactory.

Conversely, I do not crave the endorsement of the two fundamentalists you go on and on about. I left that fetid religious pool years ago. Clearly it eats you up that I don't take them seriously.

I say “tough”.

Rogers: Get a life and move on...

Anthony Rogers said...

If you don't seek the endorsement of men like Sam and James, why would you think I care if you and your "herd" attempt to embarrass me? Do you think I care about living up to your lop-sided and inconsistently applied standards? Besides, have you found me to engage as routinely as yourself in making hypocritical excuses for which I ought to be embarrassed?

Originally you dismissed Sam because "Sam Shamoun needs someone to mock, insult and curse to magnify his bravado and to impress his herd." Now you proceed to mock and insult both James White and Sam Shamoun as "loons" and "bigots," and all that after saying I talk "rubbish." Is the word consistency even in your vocabulary?

I never said you claimed to be an academic. I pointed to your own statement where you refuse to debate people without any credibility in the wider academic community. That being the case, you should not have violated your own scruples when you considered yourself, a man of no academic standing, worthy to debate Lord Williams; it is also evident that he does not accept your scruples any more than you do since he debated you.

If all this was your attempt to embarrass me in public, then I can only say that your limp-wristed attempt at a slap didn't even reach the ankle of this pygmy.

Paul said...

Rogers

your cheap attempts at homophobia are discreditable but predictable.

Clearly, you did not read my previous comments.

Everyone outside your small cult-like world of fundamentalism thinks Shamoun is mentally ill and White a bigot. The idea that I should even think of debating them is laughable. Zero credibility outside of your religious cult; zero obligation on me to pay them the slightest attention.

utter consistency...

Anthony Rogers said...

Not sure what cries of homophobia have to do with this conversation, but clearly I have hit a nerve. Perhaps you are just so undone that you meant to refer to the ever handy "Islamaphobia" card.

I think we have already seen that even if you did think you had some obligation to debate James White or Sam Shamoun, it still wouldn't change your practice; you still would run from a debate with them. You are not a man who can live up to his own words. You dismiss people as fundamentalists, but you do so with all the intemperance and intolerance of any pot-bellied, southern, pig-eating, froth-mouthed fundamentalist.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Rogers,

"Also, it is more than a little bit ironic that you would cite Ijaz Ahmad to back your play given that we consider him to be of so disreputable a character"

Considering that you got so incensed after your debate with me that you literally Googled a website looking for the terms, 'Allah' and 'loins', and ended up copy pasting from a Muslim website to create a poorly made video, how am I the disreputable one? As I recall, stealing intellectual property, while pretending to have access to Arabic books that you can't read is disreputable.

"and of such little account that we have largely ignored him after a handful of interactions."

Little account? Is that why Sam spends his days begging for Yahya, myself and other Muslims whom you consider of 'no account' to debate with? I find that quite laughable.

Anthony Rogers said...

Youngin, you are confused. I cited numerous references on your deities loins, not simply the one you are referring to. In fact, a number of the works I cited in the video were quoted by me in prior articles on AI. So I hardly needed to "google" the terms to find such information. You need to do your homework better. That is why you are ignored.

Also, the fact that the one citation you are referring to was culled from a Muslim who brought the unsightly detail to light on his page has nothing to do with "stealing intellectual property." If you guys don't want us using such information against you, then have enough sense not to make it public on the Internet.

Just because Sam "embarrassed" you when YOU came to his Paltalk room uninvited doesn't mean he is interested in you. Get over yourself. I have.

As well, our debate was recorded. Or did you forget? I loved every minute of it. If I thought there was anything left for me to do in order to route you I would debate you again. As it is, you proved to be a neophyte of no account.

Also, you might want to take down from your website that embarrassing attempt of yours to argue Hebrew with me. After all, NA27 is not a Hebrew text. I was laughing too hard at the time to let you in on the secret. Consider the fact that I am letting you know this now a token of my magnanimity.

Now, since I have little interest in talking to you, why don't you pipe down while the grown folks are talking. Maybe if you mind yourself while I talk with Paul I will give you five minutes so we can catch up on old times.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Rogers,

Grandpa, I think you're the confused one. You cited references from the article you copy pasted from, the only extra-sources you used were from dictionaries wherein you selectively quoted the meaning of the Arabic wording which the brother himself provided. In what other articles did you have cause to 'cite' an Arabic word you'd never heard of? Dishonesty is not good Mr. Rogers.

I think you need to move beyond the delusion your work consisted of his, 'one citation', you literally read paragraphs off of his uniquely translated work, of which cannot be found anywhere else, unless you're stating you translated those works yourself, all those paragraphs? Come on, let's go by Psalm 63:11, how about you swear by the Lord, or shove your tail between your legs and remain silent given your academic fraud?

Sam didn't embarrass me, in fact, thanks to him, Christians apologized for his abusive behaviour to the point he had to edit his video.

http://callingchristians.com/2013/01/31/thanking-sam-shamoun-for-our-discussion/

If he 'embarrassed' me, why would he need to edit 10 minutes of his abusive ranting, cut the end to the beginning and then leave out 2 minutes of my response? If you call that embarrassing, no wonder you stand where you are today. Shameful to be honest.

As I recall, you got routed my friend. So incensed were you that you just had to create a follow up video, then threaten me with rape when I exposed your dishonesty and fraudulent sources for the imposter and ignoramus you are:

http://callingchristians.com/2012/07/11/sam-shamoun-anthony-rogers-radical-moderate-perverted-statements/

Sorry old man, not my fault you can't read. NA 27 is a Greek text as I have mentioned numerous times on my website. If you can't follow a sentence and then think I've got it wrong, then you need to evaluate your deception skills. You really need to pipe down and relax, the educated people are having a proper discussion here, you can head to the Church for more infantile thoughts.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Rogers,

Here you go, I think you need to talk to your friends, I've been having tons of chats with them recently. Guess they weren't ignoring me.......

http://callingchristians.com/2013/05/21/anthony-rogerss-out-of-the-loop/

Someone's been out of the loop.

Radical Moderate said...

Anthony Rogers

What's funny about Ijaz's pathetic attempt at damage control for his loin god is that after he played his response video in the AC room and left, all the Muslims attacked his co-producers wife as a heretic for saying Allah did not have parts.

Also the only response seems to be the word does not now mean loins as the Muslim said it did in his article; it now means "waist." So I guess Allah has a waist that the eternal womb attaches to but he doesn't have loins. No wonder allah can not have a son he does not have the right parts and the eternal womb is attaching to the wrong place.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

What damage control? You make X claim, I make Y response. I think it's more of Anthony's behaviour that we mus label as damage control.

After all, directly after the debate he rushed to make a half assed video that got him spanked. As I remember, didn't you feature in my video as well? I recall you not liking that portion of it.

All in all, despite your deceits, the video was well received and to my knowledge not a single person complained and I practically live in AC Room.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz wrote...

"As I recall, you got routed my friend. So incensed were you that you just had to create a follow up video, then threaten me with rape when I exposed your dishonesty and fraudulent sources for the imposter and ignoramus you are:"

Yahya Snow, I thought you ran a clean blog here, why are u letting Muslims post there homosexual fantasies as if this was Paul Williams blog.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

As I recall, I am referencing your homosexual fantasies from Madmanna's blog:

http://callingchristians.com/2012/07/11/sam-shamoun-anthony-rogers-radical-moderate-perverted-statements/


Considered yourself exposed.

Anthony Rogers said...

I am not old enough to be your grandpa. Besides, calling me grandpa to return the favor for calling you a youngster overlooks that you are called a youngster by so many of us because you constantly excuse your performance on the basis of your age, something I don't do; it is also something you wouldn't do if you really believed you did a good job in your debates with me and others.

As for the claim that I threatened to "rape" you, that is one of the more ridiculous antics of yours for which you are rightly dismissed as the child you frequently admit to being. I made a sarcastic remark directing you to "wear a cup" when I strike a low blow responding to your video on Allah's loins. Nothing more. Given what you have said about your personal history, which you have placarded on the web, I can understand why you would project onto me the bizarre and unfounded claim of threatening to rape you, but that doesn't mean I find it excusable or any the less ridiculous.

The video on Allah's loins had nothing to do with the topic of our debate. I hardly made it in any attempt to respond to your poorly prosecuted case in our ATL debate. BTW, thanks for providing the link to it. Those who go and listen to it will see why you complain that you are just a child.

The only thing I cited from the cite in question was the translation of the hadith that your co-religionist offered. Everything else is available to me through the works of the scholars I cited in the video, such as Ibn Al-Jawzi, whose work had recently been translated into English, et. al.

I am happy to see that you now know NA27 is a Greek and not a Hebrew text. You didn't know that in our discussion as the conversation on your own website shows. I have no doubt that you will now either take it down or doctor it, just like Williams did after I replied to his attempt to play OT Hebrew scholar on Psalm 22.

As for the idea that you have been having "tons" of "chats" with friends of mine, as you say here, you might want to correct your blog post that says you have had a "few". As well, when you quote people to show that they are interested in you, make sure to leave out those parts that indicate that you are spamming their e-mail inboxes. It makes it look like you are begging for attention and not that people are seeking you out. In any case, I do hope you show to speak with Sam. He will give you the drubbing he gave you last time you interrupted one of his discussions.

Anthony Rogers said...

As I said before, you are of no account. Just talking to you makes me feel dirty. Unless Paul comes back to answer for his hypocrisy, I am going to have to leave you here all by yourself to grow up on your own.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Rogers,

Calling you Granpa is in response to you calling me Youngin, if you didn't get that, one is the opposite of the other. It's got nothing to do with our debate. The very fact that you have a need to connect everything I say to you about our debate goes to show just how badly you want to defend your horrific performance.

I think sending the message, 'gird up your loins, young lad, and prepare for another stomping', is quite perverted, and when taken in context of Sam asking me to 'take it like a man as a woman would take it', is more than evidential for itself. The very fact that you fail to apologize to the wider public for your perverted threats and sexually suggestive statements to persons half your age and of the same sex is quite telling indeed.

I'm quite happy with our debate, you were the one who had to run and re-do two articles on Zechariah immediately after, followed by the video. I think it's quite clear that if you were satisfied with your performance you wouldn't have had a need to do, two rejoinders and a video in response to my 'holy prepuce' comment which you forgot was made during my OS in our debate.

As I said, if you believe you got those sources yourself for your video, then swear by God and rejoice, Psalm 63:11, since you've failed to do so and continue to be dishonest, then it's clear that you know you've lied. I find it quite funny that you claim the work was 'recently' translated, when my friends own translation is unique and the only one of its kind. Did you perhaps access his translation of the work which he published --> I think we both know the answers to this.

I did know that NA codices are Greek, I've never said otherwise. You need to attend a vocational institute or perhaps an institution to deal with your OCD in regards to being deceitful. I mentioned the NA 26 (not 27), had a certain term which they used in a particular way throughout the Bible. I think we see that today in regards to the words 'servant' and 'slave', two different words, two different scriptures (Old and New) yet used in the same way in most cases. I pointed out that a certain translation utilized this trend and you suddenly are claiming that I think NA 26 = Hebrew? Get real.

A few chats, a ton, I think several a month is a lot. Both are in contradiction to your 'ignoring' of me. Proof by contradiction, you must be quite upset that you've been exposed publicly once more as a self conceited ignoramus. Spamming Sam? I sent one mail and he replied, then I replied with prayers for his daughter (which are available on our FB page). Sorry if sending one prayer is considered to be spam to you.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Rogers,


21 May 2013 18:18

"As I said before, you are of no account."

Which is why your friends continue to talk to me. How strange is that.

"Just talking to you makes me feel dirty."

Says the one threatening to rape me and stomp my loins.

You can keep running from me Anthony, you can be sure that I'd be here on this blog and I'll respond to every infantile, inane and absurd statement you make. Now be a good dog (Matthew 7:6), and stick your tail between your legs and run away, Master Sam is waiting for you.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz you wrote...

"What damage control? You make X claim, I make Y response."

Yes Anthony Rogers made the as of yet undisputed claim that your allah has parts and that some Muslims even claim that allah has loins, and that the eternal womb attaches to the allahs loins.

Abu Laith a Muslim and former Salafi wrote an article in 2007 (I believe) pointing this fact out that Salafi's believe that Allah has loins.

Abu Laith now refutes his own article and claims the word does not mean loin but waist cloth. So allah has a waist cloth but no loins, and the pre existent womb attaches to allahs waist.

So tell us is allahs waist cloth eternal like the per existent womb that attaches to his waist? If allah does not have a waist what is his waist cloth covering?

And what about this pre existent womb whats it doing attaching to any part of allah? And since only allah is eternal, what does that make the pre existent womb?

Is your loin god a transexual?

So you have a god that is made up of parts, but no loins. You have a god that has a waist cloth and a "pre existant womb" that attaches to that waist.

So I ask you how was anthony rogers refuted???

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz

you wrote...
"Says the one threatening to rape me"

Please stop with your homosexual fantasies with older men. I understand that you have daddy issues but neither myself no Anthony Rogers swing to your perversions.

No one threatened to rape you, that is just your homosexual fantasies coming to the surface.

I'm sorry your Muslim dad treated you that way. Really, I am.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

"Not yet answered"?, if I'm not mistaken, this video was made in response which refuted his claims:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akXjc5h982E

I think you need to begin trying to be honest with your claims. Lying is a sin - even in your religion I think.

Now, this might surprise you, but there is something called a metaphor. Now, this might be new to you, but not everything is literal.

Whoa! Take a moment to breathe, that's right, not everything is literal. So when Christ compares himself to a mother hen in the NT, guess what? He isn't saying he's a mother hen! It's what we educated people call a metaphor.

It's spelled: M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R.

Now if you don't understand how you've been refuted, here's a play by play breakdown.

1. He's been refuted, see the video link.

2. Waist cloth is a metaphor to describe how the creation clings to the Creator.

3. You have metaphors of the same form in your own religion - so be consistent with your standards.

4. If you don't want to be proverbially smacked some more, do like Rogers and flee before it's too late.

My God is not a transsexual, you might be concerned about yours though, since He's literally created in our image, not metaphorically, and 'our' is both male and female.

The more you know Mr. CryHavoc!

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

No fantasies from me, I'm referring to your words located on Madmanna's blog. Do you suffer from selective amnesia? A screenshot of your sexual advances can be seen here:

http://callingchristians.com/2012/07/11/sam-shamoun-anthony-rogers-radical-moderate-perverted-statements/


As you yourself proposed to me, 'if she can take it from a man, why can't you?'. I can't RM, because I'm not one of the boys you visit after work.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz ijaz ijaz

In no way was anything I said or what anthony rogers said a sexual advance to you or a threat of rape.

Thats your homosexual fantasies.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz

the fact that you interpreted what I and AR said to you as a homosexual advance or a threat of rape, says a lot about you. Especially in light of the your admitted abuse that you suffered at the hands of your Muslim father.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

This is funny watching you try to squirm your way out of your own statements. As for the appeal to emotion, it's a bit desperate coming from you.

Could you perhaps let me know what you meant by, 'if she can take it like a man, why can't you?' is supposed to mean, or perhaps referring to me as 'sharmota', or perhaps telling another male to 'gird up his loins'.

http://callingchristians.com/2012/07/11/sam-shamoun-anthony-rogers-radical-moderate-perverted-statements/


The evidence is there, no amount of fleeing will help this time.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz sure no problem its in what I wrote.

"Are u telling us that Aisha was more mature at 9 years old then you are at 20 years old"

That was the whole point of my statement. That Aisha even though she was 9 years old could have sex with a 54 year old man. But you at twenty can not have a intelligent adult conversation with out saying "I'm just a kid, your picking on a kid"

You took that and using your own homosexual perversions twisted that into your own wicked desires.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

Thank you! You said:

" That Aisha even though she was 9 years old could have sex with a 54 year old man. "

Followed by, "if she can take it from a man, why can't you?".

So your statement was sexual, it's so obvious, that if you read it, it even mentions the word sex. So how do equate two persons having sex, to suddenly being two persons having a conversation?

Come on Radical, that's probably the dumbest thing you've said in the last 3 minutes. I'm sure there's more to come from you!

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz you wrote...

"So your statement was sexual, it's so obvious, that if you read it, it even mentions the word sex. So how do equate two persons having sex, to suddenly being two persons having a conversation?"

No my statement was not sexual. It is your homosexual fantasies that have made it sexual.

You wrote...
"So how do equate two persons having sex, to suddenly being two persons having a conversation?"

Because that was the context of the previous part of the conversation.

Aisha having sex with mohamed at 9 and her not saying "I'm just a kid" is a metaphor for what you were doing in the conversation with AR and Sam. Saying words to the affect of "I'm just a kid, your picking on a twenty year old kid"

Only in your perverted Muslim mind could you take that as a sexual advancement or a threat of rape.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

I'm sorry but there's absolutely no way to worm your way out of this.

You referred to a sexual incident and then asked me quite clearly:

"If she can take it from a man, why can't you?"

What can't she take Radical? According to you it was sex. Sex. Your own words say it. Of course, if you want to recant your perverted and sick statements, you are free to do so.

No amount of word juggling will erase your sexual advances and threats.

'Gird up your loins' - guess that's non-sexual to yeah? To see a grown man playing dumb is extremely funny. Dance puppet, you're giving me entertainment.

Dance!

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz you wrote...

"'m sorry but there's absolutely no way to worm your way out of this.

You referred to a sexual incident and then asked me quite clearly:


"If she can take it from a man, why can't you?"

Yah thats kind of the whole point Ijaz a point that is just beyond your grasp.

If Aisha could take having sex at the age of 9 then why couldn't you as a 20 year old man take on a difficult intellectual discussion from men. Its that simple.

As far as AR statement "Gird up your loins" its an idiom which means...

"to prepare yourself mentally to do something difficult
Usage notes: This phrase comes from the Bible, where girding up your loins meant to tie up long, loose clothes so that they were more practical when you were working or travelling."

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/gird+loins

But you take it any way you want it.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

This is simply amazing. Watching a man flutter about in denial, frantically making excuses is quite hilarious:

"If Aisha could take having sex at the age of 9 then why couldn't you as a 20 year old man take on a difficult intellectual discussion from men. Its that simple."

What does a couple having sex have to do with you asking me about a conversation? Here's a hint: NOTHING!

What can't she take Radical? According to you it was sex. Sex. Your own words say it. Of course, if you want to recant your perverted and sick statements, you are free to do so, but we both know you'd make excuses for yourself.

So if I can't take it like she did....what did she take? As you conceded, sex. So why try to rewrite your words now? Seems as if someone is ashamed of his sexual perversions being spread on the internet.

As for AR's statement on 'girding my loins', read the entire quote, he isn't making a Biblical reference or stating a metaphor, he's referencing his video of God's actual loins in relation to me.

If you cared to study what your friend(s) actually said....you'd have to explain how 'sharmuta' isn't sexual.

1. Take it from a man like a woman does.
2. Gird up my loins to prepare for a stomping.
3. Sharmuta.

All sexual terms. No running and no hiding. Enjoy the fruits of your works, I'll be here all day and night to watch you dance.

Dance for me!

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz

Yes it is funny to watch a man squirm and that man would be you.Unless your now going to say I'm picking on a 21 year old kid lol.

Anyway Ijaz you take it anyway you want, allah the loin god knows that Mohamed forced Aisha to take it that way.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

You need to be consistent, first you compare me (quite inaccurately) to a man 'giving it' to a child, with the intention that I am a child.

Now you're calling me a man. If you need to insult me, try to be consistent, that's all I ask. Insults don't matter for even your Christ was mocked and hated by the evil and misguided :)

Allaah is indeed the owner of all things and all creations, for He is the Creator, He is also the all knowing. Therefore your comments are not insults, but rather examples of the deficiencies of your own dogmatic faith.

Dance puppet!

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz you wrote...

"You need to be consistent, first you compare me (quite inaccurately) to a man 'giving it' to a child, with the intention that I am a child."

Wow your totally clueless in no way did I compare u to a man giving it to a child.

You also wrote...
"Now you're calling me a man. If you need to insult me, try to be consistent, that's all I ask. Insults don't matter for even your Christ was mocked and hated by the evil and misguided :)"

Well are u a man? Or are u still a kid?

For the last few years you have refereed to yourself as a kid, in that conversation and others you said "I'm just a twenty year old kid"

It was even brought up in a debate you had by one of the questioners "How long are u going to be a twenty year old kid" to which you responded that you were now 21.

So are u finally a man now that your 21 years old. Or are you going to say your a 21 year old kid.

As far as your statement that Allah the loin god or allah the wasit god or allah the waist cloth god knows everything. Well Mohamed seemed to know more since there are 40 hadeeth that are from mohamed that are not included in the quran. Looks like Allah forgot that part and needed Mohamed to pick up the slack.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

Yes you did compare and as I specified as per your confusion, your intention was of me being the child, with you having said:

"If she can take it from a man, why can't you?".

Well considering that you are twice my age and some of your friends are triple my age, it's relational. To the older ones, I'm a "youngin"/ kid as per AR's comment, to someone a bit more younger, I'm a young man. As per Judaic Halacha, I'm a man.

I don't see what your random comment about hadith have to do with this conversation. Did you get bored of being slapped around and wanted to throw a new insult or something? If you think the ahadith are non-canonical ayat, then that's just plain funny.

Also, I don't see how you can 'mock' my God as a loin God, when it's your God who has genitalia, he literally was a man who was circumcised....and his prepuce worshiped.....

Dance!

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz

So your a young man now. Good to know becasue you never before this said you were a young man. you always refered to yourself as a "KID"

As far as your loin god, I'm sorry its loin-less waist cloth god.

So I do apologies.

Eric said...

You haven't changed much have you radmod?

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/08/perverted-christian-apologist-hijabbi.html


Please rethink your ways. I invite you to a relationship with God. Do you want a relationship with God? If yes, please become be like Jesus and become a Muslim.

If you have questions with the aspects of Islam and Arabic language you can ask me any time.

Anonymous said...

I see some common themes here that are interesting and disturbing.

First Williams brought up homosexuality out of nowhere and seemed to suggest that he was homosexual. Then CallingChristians starts making wild remarks about homosexual advances.

Is this common for Muslims or is it just a fluke that both Paul Williams and CallingChristians have something odd going on personally, emotionally, psychologically, etc?

Anonymous said...

The phrase "gird up your loins" is not a sexual reference you ninny. It refers to a person getting ready to do work or battle.

Nakdimon said...

LOL!!! This is soooo hilarious! STOP Ijaz! STOP!

Nakdimon said...

Oh btw... dont think I'm telling you to stop because you do so well, because you twist facts so much that I can see you taking my statements and making a video saying "Christian apologist Nakdimon begs me to stop destroying Christian arguments".

PFFFFF!

Eric said...

Brother Paul Billal Williams and Yahya Snow is a good example of how a sincere-God loving christian can find peace with tue God in the last revelation of HIM, in the deen of Islam.

I will anticipate you, Rogers and Nakdimon being a disciple of mentally-ill Shamoun will eventually fed up with the Bible and Christianity and apostatize like Derek Adams (Dk).

I wish you goodluck

Anonymous said...

Christians do not believe in luck, eric.

I cannot help but notice u did not mention callingchristians in your roll call of "good" muslims.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Mr. Berenstein,

I know I'm a day late, but happy 33rd birthday. Don't know about you, but it's kind of sad that at 33 years old, all you can do is sit on a computer and try to make fun of someone more than a decade younger than you.

Personally, that's kind of depressing, and the fact that you get enjoyment out of cheerleading for AR and RM is even worse. 33 years old and this is what you find yourself doing?

Now that's hilarious.

Jake said...

Haaaaaaa! There he goes bringing up his age and whining about being picked on. Just like Rogers and Radical said. Now i have seen it with my own two eyes. (For Ijaz, please don't take that as a sexual reference.)

CallingChristians.com said...

@Jake,

No one here is whining, I'm making a very obvious point. Why do these men, grown men, old men....spend countless hours arguing with me, when the head honcho says to ignore me?

Personally, I enjoy every minute of it, for these old timers, they don't like getting served with what they dish out.

Jake said...

I expected a childish reply.

Since Rogers left you and Nak only commented twice, how is your reply even apparently a good excuse?

As for Moderate, he seems to be more entertained by you than you are by him.

Just saying.

Eric said...

Jake, Callingchristians is no ordinary Muslim, he has been a young and very talented Da'ee (May Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala reward him generously)

I think he is the one who is the most entertained here.

Seriously folks, he made effort to help Christians to worship God not man.

Time and time again the your Gospel says Jesus is the "son of man."

We know that:
1. God is not a man

2. God is not a son of man

3. Do not put your faith in the son of man there is no salvation

4. God is unchanging He is as He always was and will be

5. One means ONE.

Jake said...

Eric,

Allah is a man. He has a face, hands and loins for Pete's sake.

Son of Man as used by Jesus is a Divine title derived from Daniel 7. It refers to a Divine person who appears in human form.

Salvation is found in Christ alone.

Your deity changed after creation, i. e. he became things after creation that he was mot before: loving, forgiving, merciful, etc.

"One is one" is a tautology. It says nothing. Unity of singularity? Unity of Simplicity? Etc.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz

I don't know how I missed this but you wrote...

"Whoa! Take a moment to breathe, that's right, not everything is literal. So when Christ compares himself to a mother hen in the NT, guess what? He isn't saying he's a mother hen! It's what we educated people call a metaphor."

My Response

So you claim that your loinless god allah having parts is just a metaphor. Well thats what u believe however thats not what all Muslims believe and that was the point of AR's video.

The only response from Abu Laith was on the how he (Abu Laith) translated an arabic word to be Loin or Loin Cloth. Abu Laith has now changed his mind and refuted his own earlier translation. Hardly a refutation of Anthony Rogers video.

Ijaz so you believe that your loinless god having parts is to be taken as a metaphor. But is that what all Muslims believe or have believed?

Also Ijaz how come your loinless god can have, eyes, hands, arms, shin, nose, face and even a waist, but not LOINS? What is the problem with allah having metaphorical loins?

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz one more thing. You wrote...

"No one here is whining, I'm making a very obvious point. Why do these men, grown men, old men....spend countless hours arguing with me, when the head honcho says to ignore me?

Ijaz we don't visit your blog, you have to come to another Muslims blog and engage us. We are not the ones who are spending countless hours on you. It is you who is spending countless hours on us. I would even say stalking us since we don't visit your blog or have anything to do with you.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

Whether not all Muslims believe so or not, does not matter. For all Christians are also not all Calvinists, they are not all Arians, they are not all Unitarian. If the point of AR's video was to demonstrate that one opinion based on his own conclusions is true, then yes, he proved his own conclusions to be true. Abu Layth's statement(s) were clear, he made an error in declaring that, this particular sect believed in it literally and what the 'it' is, does not exist as it was mistranslated.

So yes, the basis/ foundation for AR's video was negated and his projection of his own sick and perverted beliefs cannot be found in Islam.

As for Allaah having eyes etc, See 43:11, 112:4, it is not literal.

CallingChristians.com said...

@Radical,

"Ijaz we don't visit your blog"

That would be hard to believe as you did visit it last night. Proof by contradiction.

"you have to come to another Muslims blog and engage us."

Nope, I already engage Green + Shamoun via Email, and others on Facebook PM.

"We are not the ones who are spending countless hours on you."

Perhaps not you, but you're a nobody, on the other hand, the countles emails we receive, Facebook message and Tweet DM's is enough to keep us busy. Not to mention the hours I've spent with Green recently and I've learnt a lot of his views because of the sheer amount of hours he's spent going back and forth with me.

"It is you who is spending countless hours on us."

I don't think I've even spent an hour on you RM, or Anthony. In fact, isn't it you who after an entire night, who chose to return here to re-read my previous comments to you and then comment again? I'd say you're spending an awful amount of time on me.

"I would even say stalking us since we don't visit your blog or have anything to do with you"

Stalking would mean I care or that I even bother with you, to the contrary you're a nobody and no one really cares what you think. Now go have supper and stop commenting old man - why continue a discussion if you don't think I'm worth the time?

Your persistence says it all. Dance puppet.

Jake said...

S. 43:11 and 112:4 are not literal?

Anonymous said...

http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=1476

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Concerning the interpretation that Face refers to His Essence (Dhaat). Then if it is meant by this that it refers to His Essence while at the same time affirming a Face for him, then this is acceptable. For Face is an attribute of His Essence and it is not something created or separate from Him. Hence, if everything will perish save His Face, then it is understood from this that His Dhaat will not perish either, it will remain and this is because Face is an Attribute of the Essence, not created and separate from it. (Abu Iyaad, Affirmation of the Attribute of Face for Allaah, p.3)

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz wrote...

“Whether not all Muslims believe so or not, does not matter. “

My resposne:

Really it does not matter that there are Muslims who believe that your loin-less god has literal parts? Because that was the point of AR video.

You also wrote...

“ If the point of AR's video was to demonstrate that one opinion based on his own conclusions is true, then yes, he proved his own conclusions to be true. “

He did not demonstrate one opinion based on his own conclusion. He demonstrated the opinion of Muslim scholars and their conclusion and the conclusion of Abu Laith from his article in 2007.

You also wrote...

“Abu Layth's statement(s) were clear, he made an error in declaring that, this particular sect believed in it literally and what the 'it' is, does not exist as it was mistranslated.”

My response

How is Abu Layth refuting Abu Layth a refutation of Anthony Rogers scholarly video presentation and your tacid admission that there were and are Muslims who believe that your now loin-less castrated god has literal parts?

You wrote...

“So yes, the basis/ foundation for AR's video was negated and his projection of his own sick and perverted beliefs cannot be found in Islam.”

My Response:

So AR's bassis and foundation that some Muslims believe and have believed that your loin-less castrated god has literal parts based on Islamic scholars and your own admission is negated because a Muslim refutes his previous position and now says that allah has a waist cloth instead of loins? What color is the sky in your world?

You wrote...

“As for Allaah having eyes etc, See 43:11, 112:4, it is not literal.  “

My response

That’s what you believe, however again I state the fact that’s not what all Muslims believe. There are Muslims who believe that your loin-less castrated god has literal parts. You do not represent all Muslims.

So in conclusion to all this, you made the statement in your debate that Christians, worshiped the foreskin of Christ. After further investigation it was found that this was done by a small group in the middle ages, that in fact the Roman Catholic Church never sanctioned it, and has since abolished the practice first calling for excommunication and later shunning.

AR points out that Muslims believe allah has literal parts, this is not done by heretics, this is not something that makes you a non Muslim but in fact it is something that is believed by traditional Muslims and Muslim scholars. Your only objection is that Abu Layth once wrote that allah had loins, now he says allah does not have loins but a waist cloth.

It seems you and Abu Layth are embarrassed that your god has loins either figuratively or literaly, so you would rather castrate your god and take away his loins. Btw your explanation that it is a metaphor for the creation of the world would make more sense if in fact it was allahs loins that the pre existent womb attached to, and not his waist or waist cloth. BTW a waist cloth would also cover the loins.

Eric said...

In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful

God does not take human form in Islam it is abhorred in all its forms and manifestations.

Here is the proof:

"There is nothing whatever like unto Him Q 42:11

Antromorphism is still evident but is purely literal in Islam otherwise human can never talk about God at all.

On the contrary in Christianity it is a physical sense (not a literal) that God become a human being. A ‘Godman’ who eat, sleep, and go to toilet.

The worship of God in human form is therefore a logical fallacy.


Imagine if a god incarnate to become a god-man then he cut his nails or got circumcized? what happened to the cut nails and his foreskins? were those god's properties?? or they just decay like an other human properties?

Radical Moderate said...

Erik you wrote...

"Antromorphism is still evident but is purely literal in Islam otherwise human can never talk about God at all."

Not all Muslims believe your allah's parts are figurative. Some Muslims believe they are literal.

You also wrote...

"God does not take human form in Islam it is abhorred in all its forms and manifestations."

Yes your god sounds more like Frankenstein's monster, just a collection of parts with no loins and a pre existent womb.

A transexual god.

Radical Moderate said...

Erik wrote...

"Callingchristians is no ordinary Muslim, he has been a young and very talented Da'ee (May Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala reward him generously)"

My response:

Yes Ijaz is special alright, and he is very talented at lying and making false accusations.

Case in point. Ijaz falsely accused me of calling him a Sharmuta. Here is what he wrote on this blog on 21 May 2013 19:01.

"Could you perhaps let me know what you meant by, 'if she can take it like a man, why can't you?' is supposed to mean, or perhaps referring to me as 'sharmota', or perhaps telling another male to 'gird up his loins'."

He even posted a link to his website in which he selectively coppied and pasted Sam Shamoun correcting me on the spelling of Sharmuta.

What Ijaz did not copy and paste is the fact that I was not calling him a Sharmuta, I was making a reference to Ijaz calling my MOTHER a SHARMUTA on paltalk.

Here is what I actually wrote...

"Well Ijaz I have no doubt you will call me a anti Semite, accuse me of threatening to stab you, or bring harm and death to your family, accuse my mother of being a SHAMUTA and a whore, and of coarse picking on a 20 year old kid.

Oh wait you have already done all that."

You can read it here at this site...

http://badmanna.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/the-son-sees-and-does-what-the-father-is-doing-therefore-the-son-possesses-the-same-divine-essence-as-the-father/#comments

So I guess lying, and calling Christian mothers whores makes a very talented special Da'ee.

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz one more case where u have been exposed on this blog for being the liar you are.

I remember the post of yours where you were pretending to be able to hold your own with Anthony on the Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 where he made you look downright silly. And just like Anthony said here: you utterly exposed your ignorance and deception when you kept referring to NA27 as if it were a Hebrew text when it is not. AND JUST AS ANTHONY PREDICTED, I now see that you have completely erased the embarassing discussion from your website. Just like Yahya Snow and Paul William have done so many times in the past. How many times does he have to make you look silly before you will learn?

Jesus is Lord said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Trinity325 said...

As far as I know, Ergun Caner is no friend of James White, White has done a video with his Arabic tutor exposing Caner. So to refer to Caner as White's friend is a canard.

Yahya Snow said...

Hi Trinity325,

The article doesn't say Ergun is a friend of James. It's telling you Sam Shamoun is James' friend.

See Sam Shamoun info here:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sam%20Shamoun

Jake Blake said...

http://ijazexposed.blogspot.com

Radical Moderate said...

Jake Blake, great site and insight into the mind set of Ijaz. It is spot on and really does explain Ijaz's bizarre behavior when it comes to his much sought after interactions with oldermen.

Put am email address on your blog so I can send you multiple files documenting Ijaz's playing the victim at the hands of an older man.

His tirades and accusations of abuse seem to come out of nowhere. But now I can see how this is the only way he knows how to interact with his elders, its what he was taught by his Muslim father.

May he repent and come to Christ soon so he may truly know a loving relationship.