Tuesday, 30 November 2010

ABN Sat Using Dead Iraqi Christians to Bash Islam

Let's dissect this bout of Christian fundamentalism on ABN's "Jesus or Muhammad" show. For those who are unaware, ABN is an internet/satellite TV show which works hard in demonizing Islam and Muslims. It comes complete with wacky "experts" as well.

The show we will look at is entitled: Persecution of Christians in Iraq

Analysis/correction of this video is below

Sad news

Dr Bassim Gorial begins with a sad story of Iraqi Christians being displaced from their homes due to persecution. Muslims have condemned this persecution. Iraqi Muslims do not support these horrendous acts and Muslims in general do not support such vile actions, see here:

Islamophobia and Fundamentalist Christian Blood Wading

The baton is passed over to David Wood and it does not take long for him to run into his spiel of claiming Islam is responsible. This is a load of nonsense which our David Wood has been peddling for a good while now. Sadly our David just traduces the memory of those killed by using their blood as fuel to work his agenda of demonization assiduously. Mr Wood stop Wading in the blood of Christians to further your “career”…

Stop with the utter nonsense

Muslims and Non-Muslims should know the killing of Iraqi Christians is NOT Islamic. However, these fundamentalist Christians try to convince us it is (what’s knew?). For those who are interested in the truth the Prophet said:

“Verily whoever oppressed a Zemmey (a non-muslim under Muslim rule), took from his rights, or took from him unjustly, then I am his opponent on judgment day…” [ibn Hajar al Aslam, Muwafaqat al Khabar, Number 184/2]

In the same narration “verily whoever killed a Zemmey of Allah and His messenger then Paradise will be forbidden for him…”

I think that is sufficient to pour cold water on the show’s attempts at framing Islam for the atrocities in Iraq. Perhaps the show would like to show a little more respect to the dead rather than insensitively utilising them as pawns to bash Muslims and Islam with. Just a suggestion…

David Wood plus sex and more sex…

Yes, he was banging on about sex again. The sex hoaxer extraordinaire started talking about “sex with a nine year old” and made claims of “raping slave girls”. His usual nonsensical, oft-refuted rhetoric! This guy is like a broken record. However, let’s indulge his appetite for sex talk by reminding him of his demented sex hoax which he has STILL not recanted:

NOTE: This blog has repeatedly addressed his attacks against Prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha (use the search facility) but we shall address the slave girl issue by the end of the week, God willing. Just waiting on a book.

More sex, Dave?

And if he wants to talk further sex he can always open up the Bible and reference the sexual immoralities which are levelled (wrongly in my view) at David and Lot. Or if he wants to indulge himself further then he could always open up Ezekiel 23 and read about the adulterous sisters. What’s the matter? Worried the donations will dry up?

William Montgommery Watt [paraphrased] did teach whomever attacks Islam with sexually charged critique says more about himself than Islam. David, care to explain…

Mary Jo Sharp

Mary Jo Sharp mentions an Assyrian Christian leader who taught the horrendous violence in Iraq has nothing to do with religion. Yes, the Christian leader is talking sense. Islam is NOT responsible for the killing of Christians in Iraq:

Mary Jo was asking for the source of the violence. The answer is quite simple; politics and misguidance. It has nothing to do with religion. What was the source of Hitler’s brutality? Misguidance. Was the source of George Bush’s violence the Bible? Of course not. Christians, why the double standards?

In true Dr Naik style: I hope that answered the question..

Pastor Vance is bereft of Quranic knowledge

Pastor Vance does a bout of fear mongering, whilst asking for cash, by explicitly claiming the reason behind the violence is “ORTHODOX ISLAM”. Crikey, such ignorance!

He also cites S3:151 despite claiming it to be 3:15. An understandable mistake but then he goes onto to read the translation and intimates an ignorant exegesis of the Verse. Why is the bloke referring to such a Verse, was he at Uhud? It was about the POLYTHEISTS after the battle of Uhud. See Tafsir Jalalayn:

“after departing from Uhud they resolved to return in order to exterminate the Muslims, but they were terrified and did not return”

For those who are interested, here is the Pikthal translation of the Verse:

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve because they ascribe unto Allah partners, for which no warrant hath been revealed. Their habitation is the Fire, and hapless the abode of the wrong-doers.

Ibn Abbas’ Tafsir also indicates the Verse is referring to the “unbelievers of Mecca”.

Pastor Vance, please do some research before making pronouncements. If you continue down this line you will fast become as ill-reputed as the likes of Mr Wood.

David Wood sensationally selling himself

This man claims the channel will tell the “truth” about Islam and subsequently nobody will convert to Islam. Well, I’m still a Muslim and I have heard all of the contents of Wood’s bag of tricks, gags and heckles [kudos TGV].

Most of his charade is inconsistent (i.e. it condemns the Bible) and the rest is incorrect. He talks about “horrible” things Muhammad (p) did but forgets as a Christian violent acts do NOT negate Prophethood; Moses’ orders in Numbers 31 (17-20) testifies to this fact as well as David’s conquering of Jerusalem and defeat of the Philistines (see 2 Samuel 5). Even the much loved Abraham was involved in conflict (Genesis 14). Is Wood going to traduce them? Hypocrisy?

He claims he wants to give people answers. Crikey an arch-deceiver is presenting himself as some sort of guru. The man is an ignoramus and has a track record of blunder and deceit. When are these “Christian” missionaries going to develop some shame? Dave, EVERYBODY knows you make stuff up!

Theologically, disbelievers are BAD folk according to CHRISTIANS and Muslims (respectively)

The inconsistency is in full force here. These Christian fundamentalists believe Muslims are going to go to Hell. St Augustine believed unbaptized babies would go to Hell yet these Christians were making a big deal about a Quranic Verse (S98:6). The shear hypocrisy is staggering.

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْ أَهْلِ ٱلْكِتَابِ وَٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَآ أَوْلَـٰئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ ٱلْبَرِيَّةِ }

Truly the disbelievers from among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters shall be in the fire of Hell, to abide therein (khālidīna: an implied circumstantial qualifier, in other words, it will be decreed for them by God, exalted be He, to abide therein) — those are the worst of creatures [from Tafsir Jalalayn].

The Verse (S98:6) refers to the disbelievers who are going to be in the fire (those who die upon disbelief). Obviously those who are to abide in the fire for eternity are going to be the worst of creation. For a religious person this Verse should be of NO concern as Christians believe the SAME about non-Christians.

They can spout “Jesus loves you” until they are blue in the face but at the end of the day we KNOW what Christian fundamentalists believe to be the final outcome of those who reject their trinity. Why the hypocrisy? Why did the Christians on this show throw their "Christianity" under the bus?

Terrorists and Islamophobic rhetoric over Surah 9:29

One of the best people to speak to regarding the terrorists and their misuse of the Quran in "justifying" their disgraceful actions is Sheik Abdal Hakim Murad. He considers the terrorists as individuals who are unlearned in Islamic sciences. In fact we also KNOW sheikh Bin-Baz, roughly 30 years ago, presented a fatwa (religious edict) AGAINST terrorism (ref Sheikh Walid Basyouni). Enough said.

I guess ABN shuns real scholarship in favour of people with track records of deception and blunder. If you want an expert to educate you on Surah 9 and Islam’s opposition to terrorism see here:

Talking more about Surah 9:29

Let’s inject some more sense into proceedings. We have a short discussion on this Verse by Imam Shabir Ally. See here:

Mary Jo Sharp on taking unbelievers as friends (5:51)

Muslims are taught to treat Non-Muslims with good etiquette. The Prophet even visited an ill NON-MUSLIM lady who used to throw rubbish on him as he walked passed her house. This is our example, thus we are to treat non-Muslims in a kind manner. This issue of not taking Non-Muslims as friends has been explained here by Mufti Muzammil Siddiqi:


Myopic Arab Christian Zionist

Yep, an Arab Christian called in under a name which sounded like “Israel”. Hmm, I wonder if the fellow will be as accommodating if the real Israel began dropping bombs on his relatives in the Arab country which he hails from. Or does this bloke think the Israeli bombs will be “smart bombs” in only decimating Muslim bodies? I guess hatred leads to stupidity!

Jesus would not support Israel but our Arab Christian zionist believes he knows better. The folly of the “Christian” Islamophobe!

Manu: “Don’t stigmatize Muslims”

This caller interjects with some sense and warns against stigmatizing Muslims as it results in conflict. Wood butts in and begins to trample upon the sensitivities in Egypt and Pakistan in order to promote his agenda. I guess he would be jobless if paranoia and hate-mongering was done away with. He also claims Muslims are taught to “kill” and “subjugate” non-Muslims. Talk about spin!

Dr Bassim, wrongly, calls the perpetrators of the crimes against the Iraqi Christians “true Muslims”. Dr Bassim, be fair! These criminals have ALREADY been denounced by MUSLIMS, see here:

Manu adds an air of sensibility and balance to the show. Well done Manu!

Cursing 5 times a day?

A caller claimed Muslims curse Jews and Christians FIVE times a day through Surah al Fatiha. What nonsense! We pray 5 times a day and recite Surah al Fatiha (first chapter in Quran). This Surah has NO curse within it – check for yourself.

Satanic rhetoric

A caller claims Muhammad (p) was “Satan”. Balderdash! The Prophet taught AGAINST Satan. The Quran (2:168) teaches Satan to be an OPEN ENEMY of mankind:

O mankind! Eat of that which is lawful and good on the earth, and follow not the footsteps of Shaitan (Satan). Verily, he is to you an open enemy. [Muhsin Khan Translation, 2:168]

Another caller believes Satan has put a “veil” over Muslims – the usual Christian fundamentalist spiel!

Allow me to throw a conundrum at these two callers; if Islam is so “satanic” why has it saved millions from the harms of alcohol whilst Christianity has NOT? Care to explain…

Ron the uninformed

He begins his call with “you will know them by their fruits”. Indeed. He then goes on to accuse Muhammad (p) of raping, adultery and theft! Wow Ron, just wow! Ever heard of doing a spot of research, Ron?

Muhammad never committed adultery, he never raped anybody either. He never stole anything either – war booty is not theft.

Talking about adultery perhaps our “Christian” friend would like to open his Bible and read its claims upon David. Perhaps the story of Lot’s alleged “incest” was what this fellow was referencing (note bene; I don’t believe these stories for one second but they are in the Bible). As for his theft spiel; what about the men of Moses killing and taking the young virgins for themselves (according to the Bible)?

Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. Ron, what was that about “knowing them by their fruits”?

Ilyas foaming at the mouth

This caller begins to work himself up into a crazed frenzy of nonsense and incoherency. Bassim Gorial soon gets rid of him.

A regular bigot: “FatMan”

Yes, this chap named himself “Fatman” for the call. Wow, just wow! This man (Fatman) has a history of abuse, ignorance and Islamophobia. I always wondered what this chap does when not abusing Islam and Muslims on internet comment boards. I guess I just found out. ABNSat is attracting clientele complete with Halloween outfits!

Oh, this was the comedy highlight of the show as our “Fatman” was misnamed “Fatima” by Bassim Gorial. I told “Fatman” his was a silly moniker. Vindication…


This show brought nothing new to the table; the same bag of tricks, gags and heckles [kudos TGV]. It was focussed on hate and fear-mongering against Muslims and misapplying Quranic Verses to fit their agendas of demonization. They seem bent on trying to portray the terrorists as true Muslims. Such folly!

The new man (Pastor Vance) seems to be lacking in sound knowledge too. I guess he will fit right in.

It was also interesting to see Dr Bassim Gorial referring to David Wood as though he was an authority. Crikey, talk about the blind (and deceitful) leading the blind!The overall themes were Muslims are anti-Christian, devilish, devious and (potential) terrorists.

To quote their regular (Mr Usama Dakdok): “if you are a Muslim you are a demon”.

Let’s cut through the hate

Would you like to learn about Islam for yourself rather than relying on a bunch of zealous “Christian” fundamentalists to teach you Islam is “terrorism” and “from the devil”? Would you like a key to spirituality? If yes then please see here:

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Saturday, 27 November 2010

Jizya is NOT Scary [Jizyah]

Being misinformed over the Jizya

I have been watching a Chaldean Christian Satellite station (ABN Sat) and they have been prattling on about the Jizya as though it is the most obnoxious and evil thing on the planet. These Islamophobes will pull the wool over the eyes of their own folk in order to present Islam as a scary monster.

The fact remains, there is nothing wrong with the Jizya and it has been explained many times over. This post will bring you a presentation from Imam Shabir Ally (Let the Quran speak)on the Jizya. I have also presented the basics which EVERY Muslim and Non-Muslim should be aware of in order NOT to be misdirected by the “Christian” Islamophobes at ABN and other organisations who make it their business to politically scaremonger against Islam and Muslims

Researching Jizya and the Bible's support of such?

For those willing to further their research, I will furnish you a link to Jonathon’s site which covers the Jizya and features links to more extensive coverage from Bassam Zawadi. See below the video.

Bullied by the Islamophobe’s negative spin?

The Jizya is NOTHING to worry over despite all the theatrics from the Islamophobes. The Islamophobes try to bully and manipulate audiences via spin and preying on gaps in the audience’s knowledge – effectively capitalising on the vulnerable as opportunists.

Firstly, before playing Imam Shabir Ally’s presentation on the Jizya (with regards to S9:29) we should realise the Jizya is not discriminatory and is simply a poll tax which non-Muslims pay in the stead of the religious tax which is imposed upon Muslims (zakat).

Imam Shabir Ally explains Surah 9:29 – Jizya

Is the Jizya so scary? No.

The Jizya is an extremely agreeable poll tax. The Jizya is ALWAYS whatever amount both parties agree upon if the amount ever exceeds the set minimum. Now is that so scary? No.

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A:per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.
It is collected with leniency and politeness as are all debts and is not levied on women, children, or the insane. [o11.4 Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994]

Christians should NEVER argue against the Jizya: Mark 12:17

“Christian” Islamophobes are throwing their Bible under the bus in order to jump on the anti-Muslim bandwagon. The fact remains NO true Christian would be opposed to the Jizya.

Christians are instructed to give unto Caesar what belongs to him (see Mark 12:17), thus paying the Jizya is hardly an issue for a Bible-believing Christian. If an Islamic government taxes a Christian the Christian should not grumble. Quite why the Christians at ABN are jumping up and down is beyond me as they pay GREATER taxes to the US government which spends its tax revenues on illicit (ANTI CHRISTIAN) actions.

I guess the stench of Islamophobia is blinding too.

More information on why true Christians should not be arguing against the Jizya

Jonathon has a whole post regarding the Bible’s instructions towards Jizya (the post contains further details on Jizya and features links to more extensive information vis-à-vis the Jizya):

Don’t be fooled or bullied by detractors who work assiduously to demonize Muslims.

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

TAGS: kamal saleem, usama dakdok, debate, Shamoun, david wood, emery, matt slick, sam, Robert spencer, pam geller, gorial, pastor joesph najm, mary jo sharp, jizyah, new show, videos, let the quran speak, Toronto, actforamerica, briggite, ayan hirsi ali, jiziyah, pakistani christians, iraqi, iranian, barack obama, exposed, jihad, news and views

Friday, 26 November 2010

Are Coptic Christians Forced to Convert to Islam?

Coptic family converts to Islam

There is no force. Coptics come to the Truth of Islam through the guidance of Allah. All praise is due to Allah. If you are a Coptic Christian please pray to Allah and ask for guidance to the Truth.

Coptics finding the True path

Here we have a FAMILY of Coptic Christians who converted to Islam. One of the problems our Coptic brothers and sisters encounter is that of misinformation. Sadly, some Coptic Christians peddle lies about Islam within their communities in order to keep their dwindling Christian communities.These individuals should desist immediately and fear Allah.

The Truth is more important than the traditions of their Coptic forefathers. In fact, clinging onto a religion due to your cultural heritage is insincere and far from the attitude of the truth-seeker.

Video testimony: Coptic Christians converting to Islam

Mansoor Faraj Puts Truth first

An Egyptian Coptic Christian brother embraces Islam with his whole family. He offers his testimony of faith in the oneness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH).

He talks about his path to finding the truth amid all the twisted attacks on Islam among some of the Coptic Egyptians and the attacks on anyone who dares to converts to Islam in this Muslim country.

Emotional: New Coptic brothers and sisters

Our new Brother Mansoor Faraj is joind by wife, his son, and two daughter. They all talk about how beautiful it is that they found the truth after existing in a void. The ladies get emotional when talking about the ONEESS of Allah the Allmighty (SWT), and about their fear of Azab Alqabr (torment of the grave) and the Hellfire. It is such a beautiful thing to see the whole family come to the light after living a void existance. MashaAllah!!!

Invitation to the Truth

Would you like to worship the Creator of ALL that exists? It would be amazing to do so, right? If you want this spiritually fulfilling experience please become a Muslim today: http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

Learn more about the Bible: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/which-bible-by-dr-jerald-dirks.html

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
TAGS: Egyptian, coptic, light, noor, guidance, arab, arabic, conversions, terrorism, converts, reverts, church, pope shenoda, misr, egypt, islam, christianity,النصرانيهالىالاسلام

Wednesday, 24 November 2010

Muslim Defends Ray Comfort Against Atheist (dprjones)

Atheist (wrongly) accuses the Bible of contradiction over LOBSTER!!!

The evangelist, Ray Comfort, announced he had given a number of Atheists free tickets to Red Lobster and our friend dprjones sprang into action and attempted to catch old Ray off guard by throwing out a Bible verse which prohibits the eating of lobsters

Dprjones is an atheist activist (militant?) who thought he had caught Ray Comfort out but Roy responded to dprjones’ by proving lobster was permitted in the Christian faith. Dprjones has subsequently suggested the Bible is contradictory!

The Old Testament does NOT allow the eating of lobsters as they have no fins and scales:

Deuteronomy 14.9-10
These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

However the New Testament allows the eating of ANYTHING:

Mark 7:18-19
And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?"

Theologically is it contradictory?

No! Christians believe in two Testaments; one being current (New Testament) whilst the other (Old Testament law) is believed to be abrogated BUT it is still a composition of the Bible as all Scripture is considered inspired and of benefit (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

So there is an idea of progressive revelation in that previously, during the Old Testament times, the eating of lobsters would have been sinful but due to the NT abrogating such a dietary law the verse in Deuteronomy (14:9-10) is no longer applicable.

So is it Mark 7:18-19 in contradiction to Deuteronomy 14: 9-10?

As one law came to abolish the other it would be unfair to label this a “contradiction. It is not a contradiction and Atheists would do well in ceasing to propagate such a claim in their ever so lengthy lists of “contradictions”.

Red Lobster

Dprjones is a Brit, like myself, and I believe Ray’s generosity only extended to Atheists in America. I guess an empty stomach and bitterness are ingredients for error.

Internet Atheists

I do hope drpjones rectifies the situation as soon as possible. Internet Atheists need to adopt more restraint and understanding. Many militant Atheists seem to be hounding religious folk and this is not on. Whether dprjones is amongst the militant crowd, I don't know.

However, I do hope the militant Atheists will allow the internet to be a better place by easing away from their anti-religion agendas.

Here is dprjones’ original video addressing Ray Comfort

Invitation to Islam

Would you like a relationship with God? Would you like to worship the God of Jesus? If yes please look into Islam:

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Tuesday, 23 November 2010

Muslim Reviews "Jesus or Muhammad" (ABN Sat Show)

Nonsensical Title

Muslims believe in BOTH Jesus and Muhammad so the title of the show puts the Muslim off straight away.

The “Anal Sex Claimer” RETURNS!!

Wow, just plain wow. I have seen the most recent flier for the “Jesus or Muhammad” marathon and guess who is listed – none other than the “anal sex claimer” himself – I.Q Al Rasooli!!!

IQ al Rasooli is infamous for his anal sex claim on You Tube. Well, it gets worse because this “Christian” missionary even has the audacity to claim he has studied Islam for “THIRTY YEARS” whilst introducing himself on ABNSat to Samar Gorial and the viewers. I guess “THIRTY YEARS” of study meant he never opened up page 327 in Bulugh al Maram. Wow, just plain wow!

Sounds more like a freak show, it really does!

The “anal sex claimer” (IQ al Rasooli), sick sex-hoax-purveyor extraordinaire (David Wood), the bestiality bloke (Sam “Islam allows sex with animals” Shamoun) and Usama “all Muslims are demons” Dakdok. Crikey! Are you sure it is not Halloween?

Come on ABN! How about you move away from attention seekers/charlatans off the net and bring us somebody with academic clout. Can you not bring in Dr Habermas or Norman Geisler? Even the shamed Ergun Caner would be more authoritative than the current brigade.

You are a TV STATION not a YouTube outfit!!!

No job too dirty

The problem with ABN is that they want to link EVERY event in Muslim current affairs with Islam. No scholar will oblige so the rent-a-mob they currently employ are utilized as no job is too dirty for the likes of IQ, Wood and Shamoun.


We KNOW there are some terrorists within Muslim countries who DO murder Christian minorities BUT it doesn’t take Einstein to figure out sending David Wood’s sex hoax into Egypt via Satellite TV is hardly helpful in combating these misguided Muslims. You don’t need IQ Al Rasooli’s “THIRTY YEARS” of study to figure that out!

Our scholars HAVE been warning against this puritanical element (terrorists); the LAST thing we need is a bunch of crazy “Christians” from the net sending absurdly offensive lies their way. Don’t allow your hatred for Muslims cloud your common sense.

Anjem Choudary as a “Sheikh”?

Crikey, yes I’m not pulling your leg; they consider Anjem Choudary as a representative of Islam; he is even called “sheikh” whilst on ABN. Wow, just plain wow!

The man would be trounced by scholars the world over.

Of course, our buddies on the Jesus or Muhammad show don’t refer to figures such as the Shaikh Zayed Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Cambridge University (Abdul Hakim Murad).…they go to the three amigos (Wood, Shamoun and AlRasooli). True scholarship!

Expect more shrieks of “sex with a nine year old” and “he had more than one wife

Do me a favour. I am due to unveil a review of the scholarly effort of critique by Dr JM Buaben and these internet polemics would not have been considered as academic by any of those whom he critiqued. An acid test on how much a missionary knows about Islam; if he argues using internet claims then you know he knows next to nothing. Now, that speaks volumes against the ABN crew.

In fact, we have already denounced ABN’s sex hoaxer extraordinaire on similar internet claims here

Home Alone and Islamophobic oddballs
I recall a scene from Home Alone Two; the foster father of McCauley McCulkin’s character asks the hotel manager what type of fools do you employ? He says, "The finest in New York"! Well, it goes something like that.

What type of anti-Muslim oddballs have ABN Sat got in their employ? The finest off the internet! We KNOW one of their “finest” has spent time in a mental institute for attempted murder. I always hear the bells of irony when this chap bangs on about Muslim violence. Wow, just plain wow!

A redundant Anti-Muslim mafia?

Crikey, come on ABN!!! Seriously, you can be much more academic by bringing in true scholarship and not the internet anti-Muslim mafia. Is it so daunting to even attempt to bring in a genuine intellect on the subject? Or is it a case of a true scholar being unwilling to hum to your anti-Muslim tune? Really?

But we have Dr James R White…

I grant you, James White does know something about his OWN religion that is why you do NOT see Dr White going all cowboy with claims of paedophilia, polygamy, war etc (basically all the contents of David Wood’s bag of tricks, heckles and gags (Kudos to TGV for that quip)).

However, Dr James White knows little about Islam (he knows less than IQ al Rasooli and that’s being honest). We have rebuked White’s errors previously and have further rebukes in the pipeline.

Editing the Bible (Von Tischendorf or “Christian”)

You may be thinking he’s going to bang on about Von Tischendorf’s 1859 find? No. I’m going to bang on about somebody less cerebral; Christian Prince. When this show first came to air ABN had a regular caller (“Christian”); this bloke, when he is not spreading lies about Islam (or partaking in lecherous talk or calling for the NUKING of Pakistan) he is changing the BIBLE for cash, converts and non-Arab speaking approbation. Don’t believe me? See here.

Talking about changing the Bible our Sam Shamoun does bizarre eisegesis but Walid Shoebat takes the biscuit. There is no fabricating like that of the ex terrorist!!!

Walid Shoebat – the coup

I admit having Walid Shoebat on the show is quite the coup. A real big name. I guess he is the Fernando Torres (or for the Americans; Shaquille O Neil) of ABN. That’s where the comparison stops. Dr Dan Wallace and ABN’s James White have already denounced Walid Shoebat’s misuse of the Bible. Do we have dissension in the ABN camp? I don’t know and don’t care but I will like you to view the Walid Shoebat “Mark of the Beast” hoax which we have in video form (with easy to follow commentary, from yours truly). Wow, just plain wow, see here.

Christian TV shows: a dime a dozen

Just in case you are wondering as to what came of our pal, Christian Prince (“Christian”); no, he’s not at the funny farm but I can to tell you the sobering news of him running his OWN Christian missionary TV show now. I guess they are handing out Christian TV shows like raffle tickets. First Sam Shamoun, then IQ al Rasooli and now ChristianPrince. Wow, just plain wow!

Kamal Saleem: “For those who are taking notes”

Another coup for ABN. A big name. But come on! This man has TWO versions of his conversion story knocking about. Furthermore, people doubt his ex terrorist charade. However, more importantly in terms of apologetics; he FABRICATES ahadith. What, you don’t believe me? See here. And who can forget his conversion figure propaganda. Propaganda for which he has NEVER answered for. Wow, just plain wow!

Taking the ignorant for a ride

OK, I admit, the sensationalism, hoaxes and internet slur laden arguments may sway the ignorant BUT when these people scratch the surface they will know they have been taken for a ride.

In the UK, we have a saying; fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.


OK, Yahya it’s a review and you have just presented negativity, do you have anything positive to say? Right, in my limited exchange with one of their presenters I have realised they are not all the unreasonable “Christian” fundamentalists one initially suspects them to be. Dr Bassam Gorial and his wife seem to be sincere and even Usama Dakdok dropped me a polite response email. Oh that reminds me, excuse me for the segway..

Osama Kamal Dakdok, a list of names please…

I am still waiting for you to let me know who are all these anonymous (ex Muslim) professors and doctors who helped on the translation. Apparently Usama Dakdok had EX-MUSLIM experts who TAUGHT at AL-AZHER helping him translate the Quran. I have NEVER come across exMuslim teachers from Al-Azher. Sounds fishy. A list of names would help us put this one to bed, Usama…

The flier

The flier says November the 26th. Yep that's when it all kicks off. I hope everybody is wearing their best suit. Kamal Saleem has no issue in the business attire department (nice suits, tailor made? I assume they are as the fit is impeccable) but our Sam Shamoun could do with some sprucing up.

Sam Shamoun Upstaged?

Such is the variety in Islamophobic oddballs on offer our Sam is simply a sideshow. It’s not often Sam Shamoun is overshadowed but the return of the shamed “anal sex claimer” (IQ al Rasooli) is generating real waves. I have just seen some of the initial reaction from YouTube. Wow, just plain wow! Yes, our IQ has all the star quality to make it to the top of the pile. Sam Shamoun putting his free computer (paid for by Christians donors!) to effect

ABN Potential

Infrastructure-wise they have the capacity to be “better” than they are. Instead they choose a hit squad from the net - this is the frustrating thing. Do they have anything of appeal to me? No, I don’t see scholarly intent. The only reason I comb through it is in order to fish out hoaxes and crazy Islamophobic episodes such as the homosexuality episode.

Banging on about Muslims

They spend most of their time banging on about Islam and Muslims (much of it inaccurately and/or sensationally). This just gets repetitive and boring, for me. Did anybody suggest they should bring in SCHOLARS to talk about CHRISTIANITY? Is their faith so unappealing?

Trashing is NOT evangelism

Since when was evangelism replaced by trashing other faiths? Since the internet! More specifically to ABN since the internet fame-hunting brigade of Shamoun, Wood, and IQ al Rasooli brought their circus act to town. Sad, but true.

Invitation to Islam

Would you like a relationship with God? Would you like to worship the God whom all Prophets worshipped? If yes please come to Islam today. God willing, learn about your new faith here:

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Sunday, 21 November 2010

It’s “No Crime” If Jesus Had A Wife: Dr Gary Habermas (Liberty University)

Dr G Habermas of LU
Who is Dr Gary Habermas?

Dr Habermas is the 'Distinguished Research Professor and Chair' in the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, where he has taught for 26 years.

Dr Habermas catches Islamic attention

I was going through an old lecture by Dr Gary Habermas on the hype surrounding the Talpiot tomb; his lecture was an insightful debunking of what was over-hyped “nonsense” fuelled by Hollywood (James Cameron was an executive producer of the 2007 documentary).

However, neither the hype nor the assumption-laden crews from Hollywood grabbed my attention but a couple of outspoken remarks by Dr Gary Habermas got me wondering:

“I don’t think there is any crime if Jesus was MARRIED” [time slice 20-22mins]

“I don’t think there is any crime if Jesus had CHILDREN” [time slice 20-22mins]


 Dr Habermas’ dismissal of any theological concerns arising from the thought of Jesus marrying is myopic to say the least.

'The Son of The Son'?!?!

The mind boggles! Does Dr Habermas not have an issue with somebody who Trinitarian Christians describe as the son having a son? Christian theologians would be taken aback by this conundrum even whilst utilizing the idea of hypostatic union (dual nature, the god-man) in an attempt to deflect the subsequent problematic thought patterns.

Another conundrum for the church

A further conundrum would be that of Jesus (who they church calls 'the son') being a father (if he sired a child); the tripartite formula would have another problem amongst other more serious complications. Apparently Dr Habermas does not see theological contention here.

'Trinitarians would believe God had a WIFE'?!!?

Surely there are issues here for Christian theologians. The problem for the Trinitarians is obvious. There are other problems such as, if the Catholics hold onto the (non-Sola Scriptura) idea of Mary’s immaculate conception as well as her perpetual virginity due to her title of Theotokos (“god bearer”) then surely there would be a whole host of issues around Jesus having a wife/wives and child(ren) within Christian circles.

Note Bene: immaculate conception should not be confused with the virgin birth. The two are distinct beliefs. Immaculate conception belief refers to Mary being born without original sin whilst the virgin birth is the miraculous birth of Jesus

God having marital relations?!?!

Theoretically, marriage also entails conjugal relations. I have seen rhetoric from fundamentalist Christians (chiefly Islamophobes) bashing the Islamic belief of Heaven being a place where sexual relations will take place as well as other physical pleasures such as eating (it must not be forgotten the ultimate bliss in Paradise according to Muslims is that of closeness to Allah – spiritual bliss). Quite how these Christians could stomach Dr Habermas’ proclamation is beyond me.

The idea of sex in Paradise is discussed here:

Original sin

Would the (theoretical) offspring and wife (or wives) of Jesus be considered free from the original sin just as the Catholics view Mary. I would imagine the Catholics would have exempted the wife (or wives) and the offspring from original sin whilst the Reformed Church would have held firm and cited Sola Scriptura as their premise.

Surely Dr Habermas cans see the problems here..

Ssssshhhhhh!!! (LITERAL 'daughter and wife of god')

You are aware of the bible verse (1 Corinthians 14:34) which instruct women to be silent in the church; surely it would be a brave priest to enforce such a law upon the daughter (or wife) of the man they are worshipping.

Does Dr Habermas want to retract his comments?
Further problematic issues arising from this theoretical marriage:

*Would the offspring be considered those of a dual nature (i.e god men)?

*Also would the wife be afflicted with ritual impurity through giving birth to the children of her god?

*Why would Jesus take a wife if he was sent down as a sacrifice?


Of course, it is "no crime" for Jesus to have wife and child but for the Christian theologian it is a headache. Surely the evangelical Dr Gary Habermas will concede this point...

The Lost Tomb of Jesus Controversy – Dr Gary Habermas Debunks the Claim

Popular names are NOT evidence!
The names of “Yeshua” (Jesus), “Yehosef” (Joseph) and “Maria” (Mary) is NOT evidence of this tomb being that of Jesus as these names were immensely popular in Jerusalem.

Jesus had NO son (never mind a son called Judah!!!)

Furthermore, the name Judah son of Jesus (Yehuda bar Yeshua) automatically pours cold water on the initial assumptions of the documentary makers as there is NO record of Jesus having a son.

No attention for the initial documentary

Prior to the Discovery Channel’s documentary there was a BBC documentary on the SAME subject but the BBC documentary gained little attention; now that is saying something about the impotency of the wishful claims around the tomb. So why did the Discovery Channel’s documentary attract attention? Hype, Hollywood style:

“It doesn't get bigger than this” [James Cameron, Hollywood film director]

Archaeologist cuts through the hype

Perhaps the most important debunker is professor Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original archaeological dig of this tomb in 1980:

"It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner told the Jerusalem Post. "But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense."

"I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family"

"The documentary filmmakers are using it to sell their film."

Quotes from:http://townhall.com/Columnists/BrentBozell/2007/02/28/what_bones_of_jesus

Would Muslims or Christians accept the idea of the body of Jesus being present in a tomb?

No! Muslims believe Jesus was raised up to God (Quran 4: 155-162)whilst Christians* believe in a PHYSICAL (bodily) resurrection thus NO Muslim or Christian believes in an earthly body of Jesus being available for discovery.

Substitution theory?

However, there is a theory of substitution which dictates Jesus was substituted by another man and thus saved from death. If this theory is correct this man mistakenly believed to be Jesus would certainly have a tomb and it would have been inscribed with the name Yeshua.

*Gnostics did believe in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus (from ~200AD onwards)

Invitation to Islam:
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahya snow@yahoo.co.uk

Saturday, 20 November 2010

Acts 17 Apologetics’ Blasphemy: Women Equality in Islam (ABC)

Recently we admonished Acts 17 Apologetics’ Negeen Mayel for her inconsistent attack on Lauren Booth’s conversion to Islam and now we must admonish another member of Acts 17 (David Wood) as this member has been found to be using an inconsistent standard in order to attack Islam on the issue of women’s rights

Are women equal to men in Islamic theology? Yes!

Before proceeding it is important to clarify gender equality within religious context. Both Christianity and Islam differentiate between man and woman but this differentiation does not impact on the idea of man and woman being equal in the eyes of Islam.

In Islam the standard of judgement is Taqwa (piety) and both male and female are judged by this standard; neither of them has an advantage over the other. A good deed performed by a male is EQUAL to that performed by a woman (and vice versa).

O mankind! Lo! We have created you from male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware. [Pikthal’s English translation of Quran, 49:13]

Western modernism Vs Christianity and Islam

Neither Muslim nor Christian will disagree with the standard of piety being the yardstick for judgement as BOTH Christianity and Islam presents men and women having different roles BUT these differing roles do not affect the idea of religious equality.

ABC's Islam Deception--Part Three: Are Men and Women Equal in Islam? By David Wood

We shall feature and discuss David Wood’s video but before discussing the contents of the video we shall remind people Irshad Manji is a progressive and does not represent Muslims and nor does she have any Islamic authority; in short she is shunned by Muslims and the ABC would do well to bring in scholarly authority when discussing Muslim matters (our recommendation are Sheikh Yasir Qahdi or Sheikh Hamza Yusuf) rather than Irshad Manji.

Acts 17 Apologetics throw the Bible under the bus

The question here is; why would David Wood (a "Christian" evangelist) be using modern secularist standards to attack Islam when the SAME standards could be used to attack the Bible (EVEN MORE AGGRESSIVELY)?

The answer my friends, according to my opinion; David Wood (Acts 17 Apologetics) is not the most "Christian" of individuals and demonising Islam is high on his agenda in an attempt to get into people’s eye line; yes he is seeking attention - even if that attention comes by throwing the Bible under the bus!

David Wood talks polygamy and women

Here his basic premise is; Islam allows men to have more sexual partners than women (Muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife whilst Muslim women are limited to one husband)

This moves us onto the issue of biological clocks and the natural mindset of each gender. The respective nature of men and women is indeed different. Can David Wood name us some women who would like more than one husband? He would not be able to as naturally women are more inclined to one partner whilst the male is more inclined (naturally) to spread his seed. Perhaps this is one of the factors behind men being the more promiscuous out of the two genders and perhaps this is one of the reasons why true Christians have NO problem with polygamous figures in the Old Testament. We shall further discuss true Christian views on polygamy later on in this paper.

David Wood’s inconsistency is indirect blasphemy (in “Bible believing Christian” circles)

The Bible ALLOWS polygamy for the man (polygyny) but it is NOT allowed for women. In fact, if David Wood is consistent he will be yanking verses from the Bible as well as rejecting Moses, Solomon and ABRAHAM.

The Bible supports polygamy

Let’s be clear the Bible allows polygamy and great Biblical figures had polygamous relations (without censure):

"If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. (Exodus 21:10)

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons… (Deuteronomy 21:15)

Many of you will know Abraham had more than one partner but you maybe unaware of Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). So if “Christian” Islamophobes want to bash Islam they will have to rip pages out of their Bible and criticise the god (according to Christians this god is the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit) of the Bible as polygamy is ALLOWED according to the Bible. Hypocrisy is uncannily common amongst the “Christian” Islamophobes!

Yes, David Wood will have to criticise Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit as well as Abraham in order to remain consistent!

Sex with slave women is Biblical as well as Islamic

Abraham, according to the Bible, had relations with concubines which yielded sons. The relevant verse in the Bible is Genesis 25:6:

But while he [Abraham] was still living, he gave gifts to the sons of his concubines

So obviously sex with slave women was ALLOWED. Solomon had 300 concubines as well thus further showing the positive legal status of having concubines (slave girls) according to the BIBLE!!!

Rehoboam had MANY wives and CONCUBINES (and subsequently many sons):

…For he had taken eighteen wives and sixty concubines and fathered twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters. [2 Chronicles 11:21)

As Muslims (just like true “Bible believing Christians) we do not have an issue with Muslim men being able to have relations with slave women. Quite why the “Christians” at Acts 17 Apologetics have an issue with relations with slave women is beyond me as the Bible had NO issue with it and Biblical figures had concubines. Islamophobia does strange things to people!!!

I do want to reiterate the non-current nature of men having slave girls in current times as slavery is very much abolished [k32.0, pages 458-9 Reliance of the Traveller]

Be consistent David!!

Better than Abraham?

Is David Wood better than Abraham? No. Sadly, our David Wood uses secular feminism as his standard? Why the inconsistent standard? Because David uses anything he can lay hold of in order to demonise Islam and Muslims.

Sex with captives Vs Killing captives

Yes Muslims are allowed to have consensual sex with slave girls and captives; the marriages of female captives are annulled [o9.13 Reliance of the Traveller]. The issue of slavery is no longer current as slavery is not in force anymore [Reliance of the Traveller pages 458-9]

So Islam allows sex with slave women but what about the standard our David Wood should have used in order to maintain consistency? The Bible allows sex with concubines (slave women); we have already seen Abraham had relations with his concubines

The god of the Bible (for David Wood this includes the Holy Spirit, the Father and Jesus) allowed the KILLING of captives who were non-virgins:

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man (Numbers 31:17)

So this “Christian”, if he is going to be consistent, will have to criticise Abraham, Moses, the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus BEFORE he comes knocking on the door of the Muslim if he wants to maintain consistency!

Why throw the Bible under the bus?
Secular humanist sticks to bash the Bible?

As Muslims, if God did order such then we accept it and we do not criticise based on modern-secular humanist views. Our David Wood is throwing his Bible under the bus in favour of bashing Muslims with secular-humanist sticks – sticks which could be used to bash the Bible (by humanists) with GREATER FORCE!!!

David, be consistent rather than a desperate Islamophobe who throws the bible under the traffic!!!

“Surah 4:34 is a good place to start” (beating women Vs killing women)

Negeen Mayel used Surah 4:34 (inconsistently) to attack Islam. This is discussed and explained here whilst Negeen Mayel (another Christian) is taken to task for INCONSISTENCY:

Seen as David Wood uses the same argument we do not need to add much in the way of refutation but we will remind Mr Wood to be consistent

Men in charge of women in the BIBLE!!!

Yes, the Bible teaches men are in charge of women but our David Wood is Biblically unaware thus his ignorance leads to his inconsistency and indirect condemnation of the Bible.

David Wood takes umbrage with men being in charge (Surah 4:34) BUT the Bible teaches the SAME thing (see 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Ephesians 5:22-24)

David wake up from this desperate Islamophobia as it is making you look foolish and unchristian!!!

David Wood on sexual positions

Yes, David Wood is talking sex again. This time he goes to the Jalalayn commentary of Surah 2:223 and he seems to be revelling in it whilst reading it. He forgets to mention this Verse was sent down as a result of a Jewish misconception which claimed the children yielded from such a sexual position (from behind) were born squint-eyed [see Balugh al Maram Hadith 873].

The Quranic Verse makes clear this position is not a sin and Islam done away with the Jewish misconception. I do want to state anal sex is prohibited in Islam [footnote 1 in Bulugh al Maram pg 327, also see hadith 867 and 868 on the same page). One of David Wood’s colleagues (IQ al Rasooli) is infamous for claiming Islam allows anal sex!

Sex positions according to the Bible?

Firstly, in Islam, sex is a two-way relationship so wives do have a say in the way it is conducted as her enjoyment should be considered too. [More information on Islamic marital relations can be found here: http://www.zawaj.com/articles/intimate.html]

Men are in charge of women and women must obey them according to the BIBLE. If David used the same standard then he will have to claim men get to have sex with their wives in any position they fancy ACCORDING to the BIBLE.

In fact this argument can be used more vociferously, so David the next time you want to talk sex positions please open up your Bible (if you are consistent) rather than throwing it under the bus.

Who is in charge? The man (according to 1 Corinthians 11:3):

“…and the head of the woman is man…”

Does David Wood want to impose sexual thoughts on this verse? If so, then I would ask him to read Ephesians 5:22-24 as wives must submit to their husbands in everything. Yes the word EVERYTHING is used.

wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (NIV)

So who is allowed to have sex in any sexual position they want? The Christian husband!

So why all the fuss, David? Why the inconsistency, David?

Nota Bene

I just want to state; I am NOT insulting Christians or the Bible here. I am making a point of consistency. With all due respect, I have no interest in what the Bible teaches with regards to sexual positions. In my faith (Islam) marital relations are a mutual thing between man and wife so we have no concerns in this regard.

Muslims are proud of their faith whilst the Islamophobic “Christian” (David Wood) throws his religion under the bus to bash Muslims. Desperately Sad!

Muslim women competing for attention in Paradise?

David Wood goes on to claim Muslim women are not equal in Heaven either. His premise is sex (AGAIN!!). He claims (due to Muslim men having houris) Muslim women will have to compete for the affection of their husbands in Paradise. This is a load of nonsense as it is well known Paradise is a place where there is NO rancour or enmity so Muslim women will not be jealous and EVERYBODY in Paradise will be happy. Muslim women will have what their hearts desire thus they shall have their husband’s affection. (See Surat az-Zukhruf: 71, Surat al-Hijr, 47 and Surat al-Insan, 20 for a further understanding of the blissful nature we speak of with regards to Paradise)

The ultimate bliss in Paradise is the closeness to our Creator but our David Wood chooses to focus on a sexual misdirection.

As William Montgomery Watt taught; those who attack Islam with sexually charged critiques say more about themselves than about Islam.

David Wood follows Negeen Mayel (and wastes our time)

David Wood quotes the same tradition with regards to the Prophet seeing Hell (more women were present). This has ALREADY been explained to Negeen Mayel as she used the same tradition to bash Islam. Please see here for the explanation and the inconsistency therein (it also discusses the “common sense issue” and the “lacking in religion issue”):

Women are “defective” according to St Thomas Aquinas

Women as defective?
Our David Wood would do well to look at the EXPLANATION of the “common sense” issue (see the article addressing Negeen Mayel) and look into the words of Thomas Aquinas before making such claims:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power...." Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.

Care to explain, David…

Two female witnesses?

As David Wood went into further detail with regards to the “intelligence” or “common sense” issue we shall also append an answer from Dr Zakir Naik on the issue of female witnesses, see here:

David Wood: regurgitation galore

David is no pioneer; he is simply regurgitating the same tired, oft-refuted and inconsistent (and unbiblical) argumentations other Islamophobes spout.

Our David finishes off with his “Islam allows sex with prepubescent girls” canard. Thankfully he did not bother to expand upon it. If he had then this shuddering article would have been brought into play:

Sheikh Yasir Qadhi educates us all

As Sheikh Yasir Qahdi points out this issue (womens’ rights in Islam) is current due to the secular feminist movement in the West (in recent years). I know this lecture is one hour long but it is the BEST material on the subject and cuts through standard responses and presents an overarching view on the subject – essentially it debunks “the male bias myth” outright. A debunking ALL(fair) religious people will be able to appreciate. See here:


Those who understand religion will never claim Islam considers females as lesser beings. Our (Muslim) standard is piety and females have as much right as a man to excel in this all-important regard. Here is a list of women NO man on the planet could ever claim to be better than: Aisha, Khadija, Fatima, Mary (mother of Jesus), Sarah, Hagar, Zipporah (wife of Moses). I could go on and on but I shall not; we all get the picture.

I just hope Islamophobes (such as David Wood) get the picture and try to be more academic and consistent by dropping this silly charade of secular sensationalism.

Become a Muslim today:


FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Thursday, 18 November 2010

Which Bible? By Dr Jerald Dirks

Biblical Insight From Dr Jerad Dirks

Muslims believe in the ORIGINAL Scriptures but the ORIGNIAL scriptures (in their entirety) have been lost, hence the need for the Quran (God’s final Revelation to mankind)

NOTES from Dr Jerald Dirks’ lecture (plus additions from Dennis Bratcher, ChristianAnswers, Bruce Metzger, BibleResearcher)

We are not speaking about translations (ie KJV, NRSV etc). Christianity has never agreed upon what constitutes the Bible.

Are Christians agreed on what constitutes the Old Testament? No!

OT Protestant Bible is 39 books whilst the Roman Catholics add a number of books to this as well as additions to the book of Daniel and the book of Esther. Greek Orthodox add EVEN MORE than the Roman Catholics; they have a 151st Psalm rather than ending with 150. They have additions to the book of Jeremiah and add 3rd and 4th Maccabees amongst others.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has a canon of 46 books in their Old Testament. Thus Christianity has NEVER agreed upon what makes up the OT

Have Christians agreed upon what constitutes the New Testament?

No, never!

Protestant and Roman Catholics agree upon 27 books but the Coptic Orthodox have 29 books (adding 1st and 2nd Clement) in their New Testament! The Nestorian Church omits 5 books (including Revelation) which are found in the Catholic and Protestant 27 book NT. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 35 books in their New Testament (including the Shepherd of Hermes).

Did Moses author the first 5 Books of the Old Testament? (plus history of the Old Testament compilation)

We know Moses did not write all of it though this is the traditional belief of the Christians. It is a cut and paste compilation from earlier source material:

J – 950 BCE
E- 750 BCE
D- 600s BCE
P- 400-500 BCE

And they were finally put together around the year 400.

Moses (p) lived is thought to have lived within the 1600-1200 BCE range. Amazingly that is at least 250 years before the first source (J) material of the Old Testament.

The letters JEDP are a designation used by scholars to identify the component parts or sources that they understand were used to compile the first five books of the Old Testament. There have been various opinions as to whether these sources were written or oral traditions, and whether each source represents an independent strand or a stage in the development of an older source. [Dennis Bratcher: JEDP: Sources in the Pentateuch]

The Torah

Most modern Biblical scholars believe the Torah (as we have it today) to be a cut and paste compilation in Babylon. The law (Torah) was actually believed to be lost in Palestine and Ezra brought the law back to Palestine from Babylonian (around year 400 BCE).

Three parts to the OT

1. Torah (first 5 books of the OT)
2. Prophets (Nabiyim),
3. The Writings (Kethubim), Christians call this the Hagiographa (the holy writings)

The Roman Catholic Church, in order to construct their OT went to the Septuagint – thus automatically accepted EVERYTHING that was in there.

Protestants used the Hebrew text rather than the Greek Septuagint and thus ended up with a shorter OT (as the Jews at the time of writing the Septuagint had not decided what constitutes the OT)

In many cases we don’t know who authored parts of the OT (e.g. Deuteronomy, 1Kings, 2Kings). We DON’T know who authored all the books of the Old Testament. Can the OT be considered reliable based on this information? No!

New Testament Reliability and Authorship

None of the disciples wrote the Gospel accounts, sadly, many Christian wrongly believe this despite being untrue.

Gospel of Matthew – (80-85 CE) we don’t know who wrote it and it is a compilation of earlier material (proto-Mark and the theoretical Sayings Gospel (Q) and M?). First mention of Matthew writing a Gospel comes around 120 CE despite the Matthew we have being in Greek rather than Hebrew and a non-sayings Gospel

Hebrews was NOT written by Paul despite legend associating it with him.

A problem with the Bible is that it is difficult to ascertain what Jesus said and we did not; the same applies to his actions. There are NO chains of transmission either which further compounds the issue of unreliability as it is second, third hand, fourth hand information.

Does the New Testament contain forgeries (unauthorised insertions)?

The last part of the Gospel Mark (Mark 16:9-20)

Earlier manuscripts show chapter 16 to end at verse 8 but in later manuscripts there is a whole chunk (12 verses) which is added after this. We KNOW this is a later (unauthorised) insertion!

Mark 16:9-20 has been called a later addition to the Gospel of Mark by most New Testament scholars in the past century. The main reason for doubting the authenticity of the ending is that it does not appear in some of the oldest existing witnesses, and it is reported to be absent from many others in ancient times by early writers of the Church. Moreover, the ending has some stylistic features which also suggest that it came from another hand. The Gospel is obviously incomplete without these verses, and so most scholars believe that the final leaf of the original manuscript was lost, and that the ending which appears in English versions today (verses 9-20) was supplied during the second century. [ BibleResearcher]

Even the internal evidence militates against this addition:

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel. [Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.]

More info:

The story of the adulteress in John (John 1:53 – 8:11)

It does NOT exist in the earliest manuscripts we have; (the ENTIRE section does not exist). Further explanation: Biblical scholars are nearly all agreed that the Story of the Adulteress (also known as the Pericope Adulterae or the Pericope de Adultera) usually printed in Bibles as John 7:53-8:11 is a later addition to the Gospel. [BibleResearcher.com]

American Standard Version (1901). Marginal note: "Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53--viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other."

If the story of the adulteress was an ancient story about Jesus, why did it not immediately become part of the accepted Gospels? Riesenfeld has given the most plausible explanation of the delay in the acceptance of this story. The ease with which Jesus forgave the adulteress was hard to reconcile with the stern penitential discipline in vogue in the early Church. It was only when a more liberal penitential practice was firmly established that this story received wide acceptance. (Riesenfeld traces its liturgical acceptance to the fifth century as a reading for the feast of St. Pelagia.) [Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (i-xii), in the Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pages 335-6.]

This clearly shows there was a CULTURE of scribal addition which imputes tangible suspicion upon the whole of the New Testament.

More info on this scribal addition:

Dr Jerald Dirks has presented sufficient material to do away with the doctrinal view of Biblical inerrancy.

Christians; become familiar with your own scripture. Study carefully.

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (NIV Jeremiah 8:8)

God willing your studies will lead you to Islam

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (NIV, John 8:32)

Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? (77) Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. (78) Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. (79) [Pikthal translation of the Holy Quran, 2:77-79]

Tuesday, 16 November 2010

KeithTruth Defends the Indefensible + Sam Shamoun's Friend Speaks

Friendship Vs the Church

Recently my colleagues and I have been covering Sam Shamoun’s unedifying attacks and calling him to better ways; repentance and reform (as well as warning other Christians and Muslims so they can give him a wide birth)

Sadly, this quest to highlight the shackles of hatred Sam Shamoun is bound by (and ultimately free him of such) has been undermined and/or sabotaged by colleagues and/or “friends of Mr Shamoun. The most recent and high profile attempt has just been uploaded (or mirrored) onto YouTube by KeithTruth (aka Keith Thompson). KeithTruth defends the indefensible; he tries to offer mitigating circumstances and seems to be intimating justification of Mr Shamoun’s malicious actions. Perhaps KeithTruth would like to clear this up for us.

As you may know we have featured two audio pieces on this blog of Mr Shamoun’s uncontrolled and unedifying onslaughts as well as showcased some horrific text comments attributed to Mr Sam Shamoun. Keith Truth fails to stand up for the church and ultimately gives us the impression he has chosen Mr Shamoun instead of the Bible

KeithTruth Defends the Un-Christ-Like Activity of Sam Shamoun

Selective: Why Audio-Only?

Firstly, let us do away with KeithTruth’s suggestion of selectively featuring audio-only clips. I am a major purveyor of these materials and I can honestly say when I get the footage in my possession it is AUDIO-ONLY thus there could never have been a selective stance in this regard. Keith should amend his video appropriately. His attack on Imam Shabir Ally was selective as far as extracting the hateful audio comments but there were no mitigating circumstances for Mr Shamoun’s defence.

I want you to go and re-listen to the audio (viewer discretion is advised as Mr Shamoun is very offensive to Islam and Muslims in general). KeithTruth intimates Mr Shamoun is only reacting to comments by Muslims and the reaction is missed out by those trying to “demonize” Sam Shamoun.

Sam Shamoun Orgy of Vile:

Sam Shamoun Insulting Imam Shabir Ally, Muslims and the Prophet (p):

Of Children and Men (in their FORTIES)

Firstly I want to state grown men with wife and children on board should not be acting like kids on the internet. Mr Shamoun is acting like a child and KeithTruth is essentially excusing it. There is NO excuse for Mr Shamoun’s insults – he is a GROWN man who should be able to act accordingly. It’s not difficult to act in a mature manner.

I get fundamentalist “Christian” hate emails/comments sent my way from time to time but I NEVER respond in an equally abrasive and derogatory fashion. Why? Because I’m an adult who is in control and recognises the folly and sin in such an action. What do I do? I try to rehabilitate the miscreants by preaching the Word to them or rebuking them for their shoddy mannerisms (or even ignoring them). It is not rocket science!

Demonizing Sam Shamoun, really?

KeithTruth accuses people of “demonizing” Mr Shamoun. Utter and abysmal nonsense! Simply showcasing Mr Shamoun’s insults is NOT demonization. Initially when I met Mr Shamoun I tried to REHABILITATE him by acting as his mentor. I was actually praising him in comment sections when he made improvements or circumnavigated provocation. Sadly, this yielded little in the way of tangible result.

My current method of rehabilitating Mr Shamoun is by featuring his insults and encouraging responsible Christians to rebuke him. This is clearly not working as too many of the responsible Christians are not rebuking him - either they are unaware of the situation or they are worried for their own ministries financial wellbeing. In short some Christians are still stuck in an age where they do not wish to rebuke a fellow “Christian” as a result of a Muslim catalyst or insistence. This is the world we live in; us and them!

Real Demonization

What is Demonization? KeithTruth should be more cautious with his words in the future as Mr Shamoun’s colleague (David Wood) undertook acts of REAL “demonization” by spreading a sick sex hoax about Muslims. Perhaps KeithTruth will excuse this action too and lay the blame upon Muslims! I have also got wind of Sam Shamoun using the SAME sick sex hoax in 2008 (I guess the hunted has become the hunter). See here for Mr Wood’s sex hoax:

Keith Truth Spins for his Pal

KeithTruth features rebuke-worthy audio of a Muslim on the chat site called pal talk. This is UNRELATED to Mr Shamoun’s outbursts. Mr Shamoun would not be seen dead in such a room. Mr Shamoun has his own rooms or visits Christian rooms.

Furthermore, why is Mr Shamoun insulting Imam Shabir Ally in one of the audio videos? Does Imam Shabir Ally spend time on pal talk? Not as far as I’m aware. So why is Mr Shamoun caught insulting this gentleman? Where is the provocation? Nowhere, KeithTruth simply tries to defend his un-Christ-like mate.

If Mr Shamoun is “reacting”…

Firstly, I do not believe Mr Shamoun’s behaviour is all to do with reaction. Have a look at his debate with Jibreelk; we recently featured a screenshot of the un-Christ-like Mr Shamoun calling his debate opponent a “dog”. For NO reason whatsoever. Did his debate opponent insult him prior to this? Certainly not! See here:

In addition, why does Mr Shamoun NOT ignore the miscreants as Pal Talk has a feature of disabling comments and booting people from particular rooms? In fact, Mr Shamoun, in his raving attack on “Liverpool” ONLY booted him from the room once Shamoun had finished his crazed rant!

Rest assured; Mr Shamoun is not always reacting…he is instigating too

The Church or your pal?

Sam Shamoun is a fundamentalist Christian who likes to present himself as an individual who is full of the Holy Spirit (which he believes to be God). What impression would non-Christians come to by putting together Mr Shamoun’s theological assertion and his misbehaviour? Obviously the impression is far from one which furthers the church. Think about it Keith!

“Cowards” are “afraid” of Sam Shamoun in debate

Balderdash! Sam Shamoun is nothing special in debate. He is a low level polemicist. Go through the Sam Shamoun section on this blog and see his level for yourselves. Sadly, his supporters present Mr Shamoun as this awesome Terminator. He is not.

I have come across rhetoric of Dr Zakir Naik being AFRAID of Sam Shamoun. The truth is Dr Naik has probably never heard of Mr Shamoun but Mr Shamoun’s “friends” (as well as Mr Shamoun himself) like the pretence. I guess there is no hype like that of the self-induced variety.

Recently Mr Shamoun’s crew have been propagating another nonsensical claim of Ali Ataie being afraid of Sam Shamoun. Have the friend’s of Mr Shamoun ever stopped to think the reason why people avoid Mr Shamoun is due to his obnoxious behaviour – behaviour which is encouraged by his “friends”? With friends like these who needs enemies!

He is no Terminator

They should further reflect on Muslim debater’s willingness to debate RESPECTFUL and SERIOUS people like Mike Licona and Prof William Lane Craig, are they seriously claiming Professor Lane-Craig and Mike Licona are weaker opponents? It is an insult to the aforementioned gentleman. Think about it!

Debates and Offers: Sam Shamoun has got something to hide!

As per debate offers. At my initiation BeholderGuard (from YT) offered to debate Sam Shamoun on the subject: "are Muslims black stone lickers". Sam had been caught flooding comment boards with the lie “Muslims are black stone lickers”. Needless to say Mr Shamoun has shied away from defending this particular lie. In short, we are waiting for this self-styled “Terminator” of debates to accept the debate proposal. I guess Mr Shamoun never mentioned this debate to his pals – it just doesn’t feed the “Terminator hype, does it? See here for the debate outstanding proposal, I guess Mr Shamoun lacks the stomach to defend his lies:

Furthermore, you would do well to look into thegrandverbalizer’s critique of Mr Shamoun’s unwillingness to showcase all his debates on his website. Think about it, if Mr Shamoun is this “Terminator” he wants us to believe him to be then how about him showcasing his debates on his site. He does not. Why? Because he knows those debates are indeed an embarrassment, at times he even fizzes out and resorts to nasty insult. Arnold Schwarzenegger eat your heart out!

Sam is no “Terminator”; he knows it and everybody else knows it.

I will now discuss a comment sent in by ANOTHER friend of Sam Shamoun.

TheFatMan: Yahya Snow One of the most Vile People in the World (Wow!)

A sad insight into the hatred which surrounds Mr Shamoun

Here it is folks! I am alongside Charles Manson, Hitler, Starling etc according to Sam Shamoun’s friend who goes by the username “TheFatMan”.

“If i said the most vile person in the world, I was wrong. I meant to say "One of the most vile people in the world." thanks for correcting me. Why would I ever want to be your friend? You deliberately attack my friends”

Crikey, this is the bloke who ran off to Mr Wood’s blog as soon as I featured Mr Shamoun’s uncalled for and unprovoked assault on imam Ally. For those who are wondering; he claimed I was “attacking Christians again”! Wow, just wow!

Since when was featuring Mr Shamoun’s insults classified as an attack on “Christians”? Anybody would think I was a Roman emperor! Surely, featuring the problematic utterances of Mr Shamoun will HELP reform him and DEFEND true Christians? If you search this blog you will see I have a section DEFENDING Christians!

TheFatMan would do well to grow up and act like a REAL friend rather than a glorified sycophant who has allowed and encouraged Mr Shamoun to decay as an aberration on the internet for the past DECADE!

Sam Shamoun used by his “friends”, sad!

TheFatMan does not care about Mr Shamoun. The FatMan wants Mr Shamoun to continue wasting his life in chat rooms and comment boards insulting Muslims. TheFatman, for those who are unaware is a well-known insulter and hater of Islam. We don’t need to catalogue his misbehaviour, those who are familiar with him will testify to this. He even named his dog after the Prophet and was flippant about it when called on this issue. Sad!

And yes, I have tried to rehabilitate TheFatMan too. TheFatMan is also in his FORTIES; no, I don’t think ALL fundamentalist “Christians” go all childish on us once they hit the big 4-0 but rest assured a fair number of the childish brigade are attracted to bigots on the net. Sad!

Farts, Lessons and Minions

Mr Shamoun’s supporter (TheFatMan) continues:

“You have your minions interrupt someone while he is giving a lesson in order to provoke him to anger, and like a child who laughs at his own farts, you hold your nose and point the finger at someone else when they do it”

Classic denial, shoot the messenger!

Firstly, I have no “minions”. If people CHOOSE to send me audio material of Sam Shamoun going berserk then that is up to them, they are not hired by myself and nor are they my “minions”. Perhaps individuals who are willing to send material are GENUINELY seeing Sam Shamoun as in need of urgent help and they want to publicize it. Or perhaps they just find Sam Shamoun to be an unacceptable piece of work who is two-faced; in front of his financial donors and those who could further his “career” Mr Shamoun is the “pious” Christian but when their backs are turned…

Hours of polite conversation…

“I find it interesting that your one or two minute clips of Sam do not contain the sometimes hours of polite and pleseant dilogue that he has with Muslims

Since when did Sam have hours of “polite dialogue”? Perhaps TheFatMan should go off to Jibreelk’s site and study Jibreel’s interactions with Sam Shamoun. Sam Shamoun, somehow, pulled of a coup in getting Jibreelk to enter into a public debate with him. However, the debate soon fizzed out into a shambles as Sam Shamoun’s disingenuous, amateur and aggressive tendencies were manifesting themselves. What of the debate? It is meant to be still going o but the only problem is Sam has bailed out after his customary insults. The last I heard of Sam on this debate was him bailing out and authorising his pal (Keith Truth) to “refute” the “dog”. Yes he called Jibreelk a dog and bailed out. Amateur or what! Un-Christ-like or what? Un-Terminator like or what?

Really, go and study the debate. Jibreelk did not provoke Sam Shamoun’s craziness; he did not warrant such abuse. That is vintage Sam Shamoun – abuse and ask questions later!

TheFatMan discusses Negeen Mayel:

“And now you are attacking a girl. I hate to pour cold water on you, but you need to be woken up from this wet dream of yours. Nageen is in the hands of her one true love, and no one can wrestle her from his hands. She will never leave him especially to return to your vomit that is Islam”

Firstly, try spelling her name correctly.

Just for the record, I did not attack her. We responded to her inconsistent article related to Lauren Booth’s conversion. Everything is an attack in this man’s eyes. Go and see for yourself…it was NO attack on her being but a response to an article. See here:

“Wet dream”?

Clearly this bloke has nothing to do with the church. This is the standard of friends Mr Shamoun has and this the calibre of those who defend Acts 17 Apologetics’ sex hoax and Mr Shamoun’s derisory behaviour.

He finishes off in true bigot style by calling Islam “vomit”. This man seems to be insecure, rather than responding to the article highlighting sister Negeen’s inconsistency TheFatMan just insults 1.7 billion people.

Do you really want me to continue quoting from the misery TheFatMan sent me? “Farts”, “vomit” and “wet dreams”???

This bloke will have us believe he is full of the Holy Spirit and Muslims are “children of the devil”. Welcome to the bizarre mind of the internet fundamentalist “Christian” (aka Islamophobe).

He then goes on to accuse me of being anti-dialogue. Oh really? Since when were hate-fests deemed to be "dialogue"?

What’s in a name?

TheFatMan takes umbrage with me calling him “Jeff” rather than this silly handle he has of “TheFatMan”. He insists I should call him “TheFatMan”. I have previously told him to change his name if he wants to be taken seriously. That is what true friends do…they advise each other with sincerity. “TheFatMan” NEVER received such advice from the Islamophobes which he circumambulates in the cyber capacity. That is quite telling; do they care about TheFatMan or do they just want his support and cash?

Forget About “Farts” “Vomit” and “wet dreams” we are now talking murderers, thieves and rapists

Apparently TheFatMan will rather be in the company of murderers and rapists than myself. Crikey, that is deep. I guess, in his view, his hater-pal is more important than the church:

“Sir I have literally been in a room with rapist's, murders and thieves. I would count anyone of them as a friend before I even considered you for the position. Not that I have a affinity for such people, but with them I would know where I stand and that is why I would prefer their company to yours.”

I have Muslim friends, honest!

As with every Islamophobe; they finish off (or begin) their rants with “I have Muslim friends” or “I love Muslims”. So TheFatMan wants us to believe he has Muslim friends whilst supporting two known abusers of Muslims/Islam who spread childish sex hoaxes about Islam and the Prophet (p).

He also wants us to believe he is pals with Muslims after calling the faith of Muslims “vomit” as well as insulting the Prophet Muslims believe in.

OK, TheFatMan…we are looking out for flying pigs.

You can see TheFatMan’s comment in full in the comment section. We don’t want him accusing us of “misquoting” him or “attacking” him!

TheFatMan, you are in your FORTIES…start acting that way! I call you to Islam. Research it with a sincere heart. The same applies to Mr Shamoun and KeithTruth.

Message to sincere Christians

Why do you allow shoddy folk to represent you? Please stop giving them cash as this only encourages them. These individuals are motivated by hate-expenditure, self-aggrandizement and/or financial gains. Muslims and Christians should work together more often as faith is being marginalized by the wave of secularism in the West. Think about it, gay “marriages” are forced on our society, pornography is an accepted norm nowadays, rampant materialism, religious figures are insulted and mocked etc. This is all very alarming for religious folk of whatever persuasion

Learn about Islam here:

As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)

Peace and love
Yahya Snow

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com