Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Nabeel Qureshi vs. Osama Abdallah: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?

Thus saith Osama Abdallah:

David and Nabeel lost badly in their last two debates with me. That is why they're not posting those debates. Plus, they never really won any debate. All of their debates were either a tie or a loss. Both my last debate with both of them were not posted on their site. Nabeel was schooled very bad on the resurrection of Jesus, and David was refuted bad as well.

We'll let you be the judge.

Opening Statements




Rebuttals and Conclusions



170 comments:

Yahya Snow said...

Osama Abdallah looked very smart for this debate!

Also his presentation was very interesting and the style was very good. I think it took Abdallah time to adjust to debating LIVE as he was more accustomed to written debates and refuting ideas via his website. Hence it took him some time (ie his earlier debates) to acclimatise to the new format.

But NOW all I can say is Alhamdulillah...his presentation was very clear and fluent! He has clearly worked on it and all Praise is due to Allah.

I said previously (in the comments of a debate where people didnt understand some of the points Abdallah was making) that it was frustrating listening to Abdallah as I KNEW he had worthy points and fine arguments but some of it was getting lost in the presentation which was unfortunate...but in this one I feel even the biggest opponent of Abdallah cannot criticise the clarity of the points. I am really happy as I like Abdallah and wanted him to succeed and add oral debating abilities to his written debating skills. He has done that and now he can share his knowledge to those who have not visited his site!
I know some of you guys give Abdallah a hard time but you have to give everybody time. We are all humans after all.

And may Allah bless his young family. Ameen

Osama Abdallah said...

Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/the_resurrection_debate_osama_vs_nabeel.wmv to see our debate with my commentary on it to see how Nabeel's points were exposed.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

The Osama Abdallah saide manie things:

* All the N.T. misunderstod Psalm 91… hummm… and with sentence the Osama destroyed the ceredbility off all the NT authjors, exegetes and Christian theologians… hummm… mie kingdom is bie farr bigger than your empiere…

* Earlie writings of Jesus’s disciples in Palestine ande Egipte like the “Apocalypse of Peter”… yep… 70 years latter, withoute any previous suppoort for this ebidence, is indeed bery early… strange thate to supporte claims made bie the qur’an someone woulde go to gnostic sources… hummm… somethingue to do with the facte the author off the qur’an indeed was inspired bie those sources? hummm…

* Apocalipse is a Latin word… hummmm… not geek? A new Latinist and a nes paradigm for latinistes erupted… no… the correction was made…

* Quoiting from wikipidia... a greatt solid source... butt even the disputed mentiones in the wikipedia has nothing to do with the texte was Gnostic or notte, rather to see witch Gnostic Christologie was followed…

* Man he followed the samme argumentation thate madde him look so ignorantte is his debate with professor Wood… hummm… old people habe difficultie to learn…

* Jesus did not habbe a father, so he was called Jesus bar Abba… so: were the persons who knew Jesus butt did not beliebe in His divine nature callingue him Jesus bar Abba?

* Barabbas was killed bie the romans? In withch qur’an version?

More soon...

aboutte the biblical cailmes gerr readie for good laughs...)

The Fat Man said...

Yahya Snow said...
Osama Abdallah looked very smart for this debate!

Yeah smart people always quote WikiPedia as a source in a debate

Osama Abdallah said...

Thank you dear brother Yahya. May Allah Almighty greatly bless you akhi. Ameen.

Fat Man - I hardly quoted from wikipedia.org. But the site is usually administered by Ph.Ds. It is not as low as you think. However, sometimes it does contain wrong information in it. However, the parts that I quoted were written by experts in the manuscripts outside the Bible's canon. So, my sources were quite valid.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

The Fat Man said...

Just got done listing to Osama's opening. I have to say this is a somewhat different approach. It was somewhat refreshing. I like to here the Tanak brought into the discusion of Jesus.

However with that said, he used the same muslim technique of setting up a false premise and then attacking that premise.

Fernando said...

Osama Abdallah the Great saide: «But the site is usually administered by Ph.Ds»... righte... like mie students or my 15 and 16 year oldes sons... how low can someone go with his lyies...

More: eben according withe Wiki the only off the two "Apocalipsis off Peters" who reffreres the Jesus laughing is teh gnostic one (no dountte aboute thate whatesoeber):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter,

in witch page there is not a singel refferance for external links or sources for teh claimsOsama Abdalla did... so: from where did he gott the idea the partes he quoted were fromm "experts in the manuscripts outside the Bible's canon"?

how low can someone go with his lyies...

eben iff he was mistaken and wantted to talke aboute the non gnostic Apocalypsis of Peter (thate do nott refferes to the crucifixion), tehre is nott a single external linke or quotes from "experts in the manuscripts outside the Bible's canon"... so: from where did he gott the idea the partes he quoted were fromm "experts in the manuscripts outside the Bible's canon"?

how low can someone go with his lyies...

p.s.: the other possibility is tahte Osama Abdallah the Great now the writter off all the entries in those pages... how low can someone go with his lyies...

Sepher Shalom said...

I wish Osama would stay on topic. He operates the same way in debates as he does in the comment sections on this blog [i.e. habitually going off topic].

In this debate he discussed: the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Messiah, textual transmission, synoptic problems, issue of inspiration and authorship...and that's a list from loose memory. If I had been writing them down, I'm sure there would be several more.

This is the main reason I have almost given up on listening to debates he participates in. It is very intellectually disappointing when you expect to hear a lucid topical debate of point-counterpoint and one debater wanders off topic for his whole rebuttal.

minoria said...

I have to add my comment.Osama spoke clearly.He has no accent or hardly any.That's a big leap.Also his website is the most popular anti-Christianity one among Muslims.It far outstrips all the other Muslim ones.

But there is the bad luck of having the name "Osama".Since 9/11 it's become as bad as "Adolf" since WW II.

I was thinking of adding this in the section on Mary Jo,since Ehteshaam brought it up,but since Osama has also,here I go.

Mark has Jesus saying he's the Lord of the sabbath,and he can forgive sins.He indirectly says he's God.Then Mark 10:17-18 has a man say to him "good teacher".Jesus says:"Why do you call me good?Only God is good."Luke 18:18-19 repeats it.

Countless Muslims say Jesus is denying he's God here.It can be interpreted like that.So Mark has Jesus contradict himself.But we have to know Jewish customs.It was a custom among Jewish teachers to ask their disciples questions to make them think.

Often they would "answer a question with another question."Socrates used the same method."You talk of justice,beauty,etc?What do you mean?Define your terms."

Jesus was asking him what he meant by "good"("why do you call me good?"Then he said only God was good.But he never said:

"Why do you call me good?Only God is good,I am not God" or:

"Why do call me good?Only God is good,and I am not good."

Matthew19:16-17 understood this and paraphrased it (an acceptable historical practice of Antiquity) as "Why do you ask me about what is good?"

Jesus technically doesn't deny he is God nor affirms it.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Mark has Jesus saying he's the Lord of the sabbath,and he can forgive sins.He indirectly says he's God.Then Mark 10:17-18 has a man say to him "good teacher".Jesus says:"Why do you call me good?Only God is good."Luke 18:18-19 repeats it."

Jesus himself explained why he broke the Sabbath. IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS BROKEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT BEFORE by Moses, David and a number of Jewish Priests. Plus, Jesus also said that good had always been allowed to be done in the Sabbath. Jesus also said that the Sabbath was discontinued and violated a long long long time ago. Please read: Matthew 12:4-6, John 7:23, John 9, Luke 13:14-16, Luke 6, Mark 2:23-28

Thank you very much for this point, minoria, because my web site does not have this topic covered. CERTAINLY, ANOTHER TRINITY-LIE IS EXPOSED AND REFUTED HERE, ONCE AGAIN. All Praise and Glory are due to Allah Almighty Alone!

Thank you,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

minoria said...

The emphasis of Jesus is not why the Sabbath was broken,it can be broken for X reasons.His main point was he was Lord of the Sabbath.In Judaism only Yahweh is Lord of it.A rabbi would agree.The Sabbath was created for Yahweh by him.He was being clear.

If a Muslim said:"I am the originator/creator of the Koran",what can you say?He says he's Allah.It's clear to a Muslim.So "Lord of the Sabbath" as an expression was clear to a Jew.

For the public in general,if you want a Messianic Jewish,or Christian(where Christian comes from Christos=anointed one in Greek),so Christian means Messianic(where messiah=anointed one in Hebrew)view on Isaiah 53,go to:

realmessiah.askdrbrown.org/Answers_to_Objections.htm

It's by Michael Brown,Phd and it has:

General Objections,Historical,Theological,Messianic,NT and coming soon,Traditional Objections.Click on Messianic Obj.

And it's amazing how many have seen the Arabfest video,17,600 and counting in 6 days.How did word get out so fast?It's as if someone had said Enrique Iglesias was in town.

Fernando said...

Osama Abdallah the Great... please: can you tell uss where Jesus expolainned tahtte He broke the Sabbath because it was brokken before and nott because He was the "owner off the Sabbath" (=God)? Thankes...

Sepher Shalom said...

As minoria aptly pointed out, only the Creator is "L-rd of the Sabbath". No one else has a right to that title.

Osama's misunderstandings about the nature of Shabbat, the verses related to Shabbat, and whether or not Yeshua broke it, is completely irrelevant to the point minoria makes.

I actually had this nice little response typed up to correct his error, but then I realized it's completely irrelevant, and is just more of Osama's habitual addiction to taking discussions off topic [just as he demonstrated in the debate with Nabeel].

So Osama, can you show me any clear evidence from the Bible that any human is allowed to call himself L-rd and Master of the day that YHWH explicitly declares is set-apart to Him alone?

Charlie said...

Nabeel,
I enjoyed the debate and thought you did an excellent job presenting the historical case for the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

One piece of advice I would offer is next time let Osama Abdallah know what the topic is.
Osama seem to think he was in a paltalk chatroom with a time limit on the mic and his "divinely" appointed challenge was to exhaust every negative thought that came to his mind about Christianity, the Bible and Christians.
Osama however showed great restraint in not using the Islamic trump card of Jesus was born from the womb of a woman. This is the Islamic answer to everything from the contradictions in the Quran to the lack of evidence for the prophethood of Mohammed. All of these charges will be met by "Your God comes thru a woman".
So maybe progress is being made. I do pray the debates in London glorify the Lord and may God use both of you to bring many into the kingdom.

The Fat Man said...

I have created a blog that completly refuts muslim wiki and youtube scholars.

http://youhavebeenrefuted.blogspot.com/

See that muslims its a internet site, so it must be true. You have been refuted :)

Osama Abdallah said...

"The emphasis of Jesus is not why the Sabbath was broken,it can be broken for X reasons.His main point was he was Lord of the Sabbath.In Judaism only Yahweh is Lord of it.A rabbi would agree.The Sabbath was created for Yahweh by him.He was being clear."

Jesus' argument about the Sabbath was already broken by Moses, David and a number of Priests, and that good had always been allowed to be done on the Sabbath proves that Jesus was only following the flow, and wasn't the Lord of anything.

Remember, all authority on earth on Jesus' followers was given to Jesus by GOD Almighty Alone. Jesus was no Lord. He was only a Servant of GOD Almighty. Isaiah 11:2-3 state that THE SPIRIT OF FEARING GOD ALMIGHTY WILL BE PUT UPON THE SERVANT (JESUS).

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Haecceitas said...

I think that Osama's approach is interesting but ultimately weak. Dealing with the OT texts would be a worthy exercise by itself, but using them as the primary evidence against a historical case for Jesus' resurrection is going to fail every time if used against a competent debater (such as Nabeel).

Nabeel made it clear that he didn't presuppose the inspiration of the Bible for the purposes of his case, so it makes no sense to attack NT details irrelevant to the topic at hand and declare that this discredits the documents as a whole. No historian would accepts such methodology.

If this is what Osama calls a victory, I must say that I'd probably feel too sorry for him to even watch a debate where he got defeated. (I say this without wanting to be offensive to Osama or anyone else. At least he's willing to stand up for what he believes, which is admirable.)

Having said that, I do think that Osama vs. David or Nabeel debating the doctrine of the Trinity would be pretty interesting. The thing is that the topic should be narrowly defined and both debaters should stay on topic.

Fernando said...

To The Osama Abdallah the Great: ounce againe: «can you tell uss where Jesus expolainned tahtte He broke the Sabbath because it was brokken before and nott because He was the "owner off the Sabbath" (=God)? Thankes»

or in other wordes: where other persones thate broke the Sabbath saide thei were lords off teh Sababth?

If you aske a 3 years olde baby and a 25 years olde person whate is the square-roote off 144, bouthe may saie "12", butt witch one off them woulde you say was sayiengue tahte withe perfect knowledge off the deapest meaning?

another example: a murdered killingue a person duringe a robber or a police killing an abductur who was ready to kill a baby in his hads woulde be doingue teh same thingue?

We woulde all bee berie gratefull to habe some answer from you on this toppic... thankes...

Fernando said...

Brother The Fat Man said: «I have created a blog that completly refuts muslim wiki and youtube scholars»... man... Whie amd I so slow to imaginne these things? Great idea ;)

minoria said...

About Isaiah 11:2-3 it would be explained by the Trinity,God the Father and his relation with God the Son.About Jesus being given all authority on earth by God,fine,he acts in God's name,as his representative.

But would it justify a mortal taking over a title reserved for Yahweh alone?"Lord of the Sabbath"is such a title,in Judaism.

Suppose Mohammed were given "all authority" on earth by Allah.Do you think Allah would like it if Mohammed adopted all the 99 names of Allah in the Koran for himself(the ALL-wise,ALL-powerful,ALL-present,ALL-knowing,etc)?

Or if you are a Shiah,do you think Allah would like it if the Mahdi did the same?About Psalm 91,it can be explained by a Jewish technique called MIDRASH.Not only that psalm but several passages in the NT,that are erroneously called prophecies.The NT writers used Midrash.Nothing new,all scholars know it.More on that later.

Hey,the Arabfest video appeared on jihadwatch.org yesterday and faithfreedom.org today.No wonder more than 27,000 have seen it in 7 days.

Bartimaeus said...

Osama

You got crushed. Who cares about your comments. To put comments up after were humiliated shows how dishonest you are.

Alforreca said...

Fernando: don't confuse Osama Abdallah with your metaphors: they're (even as clear and pedagogical as they are) too much complex to his limited brain. If he believes in half of what he said in this debate he would, by any impartial observer, be considered as a below average intellectual.

MuslimPhantom said...

Osama Abdallah. I’m a real fan of yours: you’re one of the better prepared apologists in the US. These words that many people say around here only testify that reality: they need to defend the appalling performance of the apostate Nabel. May Allah bless you.

Osama Abdallah said...

"To The Osama Abdallah the Great: ounce againe: «can you tell uss where Jesus expolainned tahtte He broke the Sabbath because it was brokken before and nott because He was the "owner off the Sabbath" (=God)? Thankes»"

To Mr. Fernando the Superman, I've already given the references of Jesus saying that Moses, David and a number of Jewish priests already broke the Sabbath, and that good had always been allowed to be done in the Sabbath, above. Here they are again:

Matthew 12:4-6, John 7:23, John 9, Luke 13:14-16, Luke 6, Mark 2:23-28


As to your other points about Jesus claiming to be the LORD OF THE SABBATH, quite honestly Fernando, given that the Bible's accounts are all doubtful and self-refuting and full of contradictions, I really couldn't trust accepting that Jesus did indeed say that he was the lord of the Sabbath. But if he ever did, he probably meant it in the context of it (the Sabbath) not being that big of a deal, and was never a big of a deal, especially when in the Old Testament, many many punishments for very simple sins that are as little as REVILING YOUR PARENTS or not following a command from them were punishments of death or CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. So breaking the Sabbath and its punishment being a capital one wasn't a big deal to Jesus.

Also, keep in mind that the New Testament writers in many many verses misquoted the Old Testament and its accounts. This again proves that the Bible is not to be trusted.

YOU SIMPLY CAN'T ASSUME, AGAIN ASSSSUUUUMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS GOD ALMIGHTY because he was called or he said he was the Lord of the Sabbath. You have to have much better evidence than that.

Also, Jesus being the Messiah and the Prophet and the King of the Jews, and him having the authority FROM GOD ALMIGHTY to terminate the Sabbath altogether made him a lord of the Sabbath HERE ON EARTH ONLY and to the people whom he was dealing with. Calling the man GOD Almighty for this reason is indeed a blasphemy, and is not supported even by the New Testament, nor the Old Testament.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Fernando said...

The Osama Abdallah The Great (see how we cam be humorouse between us and, eben so, be respectefull and zealous in the presentation off our pooints? thankes to understand thate..): thankes for youre half-reply... it's a stare: now I understand better your pointe... I mustt now lebe, butt I'll get in touche...

God bless (and for me God is the Holie Trinity) you and your wife and daughter.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Also, Jesus being the Messiah and the Prophet and the King of the Jews,..."

I would like to know how you determine that Yeshua was King of the Jews. What is your source for this claim? You can't appeal to the Bible because you said, "Fernando, given that the Bible's accounts are all doubtful and self-refuting and full of contradictions, I really couldn't trust accepting that Jesus did indeed say that he was the lord of the Sabbath", and you said, "Also, keep in mind that the New Testament writers in many many verses misquoted the Old Testament and its accounts. This again proves that the Bible is not to be trusted.".

So, if you disqualify the Bible as a reliable source of information, where do you get this notion that Yeshua is King of the Jews, and why are you appealing to material [verses from Matt., Mark, Luke, and John] that you believe is untrustworthy to try to prove your case?

In the Bible, Yeshua clearly states He is "L-rd of the Sabbath". Your primary answer for dealing with this is saying you don't believe He really said it, because the Bible can't be trusted. Then, in the same post you appeal to verses from all 4 of the Gospels to try to build a case. If these sources aren't even reliable enough to quote Yeshua, then they certainly aren't reliable enough for you to appeal to refute minoria or Fernando.

You are being absurdly silly and inconsistent. My only guess is that you will now try to rescue yourself by saying, "some of the Bible is authentic", or something to that effect. If you do, I would like you to explain HOW EXACTLY you determine which parts of it are authentic and which are false. I hope you don't use the Shabir Ally method [That which agrees with the Quran is true, and that which disagrees is false], but I suspect that will be all you have to say.

The real truth of the matter is, if you were to be consistent you would have to completely abandon quoting the Bible to disprove our beliefs, and you would only be able to do debates on topics of textual transmission, inspiration, and reliability of the Bible; and no doubt you do not wish to restrict yourself in either of these ways.

It is doubly ironic that in this very debate with Nabeel, the only meaningful case you could build to refute the Resurrection was accomplished entirely by quoting from the Tanach. Now, you say it's not reliable anyway. This begs the question: What on earth are you doing using it as evidence in your debate with Nabeel? What a mess you have created for yourself Osama.

minoria said...

Muslims don't believe the 4 gospels are reliable about Jesus,and not the word of God.So let's just take them as purely human documents,like the Mahabharata and Bhagavad-Gita of Hinduism.

At least Muslims will agree Mark REPRESENTS the ideas of the author called Mark,if not of Jesus.The author here is telling us Jesus was claiming Deity.Whether true or not,they are at least Mark's view on Jesus.Mark tells us at least he thought of Jesus as God.It's illogical to say he was trying to say something different,when the verses are clear enough.

Since Mark or whoever wrote Mark thought of Jesus as God,then by logic it implies a virgin birth.Shabir Ally often says from Mark to John we have legendary addition.

So in Mark Jesus is only human,no virgin birth,he's not God.Matt and Luke have a virgin birth,but he's still only human,not God.John has Jesus as God.

But Jesus claims Deity beginning n Mark,indirectly but it's there.So it gives as a virgin birth.To think Mark would think Yahweh could have a biological father is nil.

minoria said...

About the Midrash and the NT.Midrash is a technique developed hundreds of years before Jesus where passages of the OT are analyzed for repetitions in patterns,deeper meaning,parallelisms.Like why is the number 7 or 3 (reference to the Trinity?)repeated so many times in different stories.Is it coincidence?Is there a hidden message?

Many don't know of the Midrash technique by the gospel writers and say they misquote the OT.

So in the NT the Devil uses Midrash with Psalm 91.He wasn't saying it was a Messianic prophecy,only the situation in it would apply to Jesus.

Matt 2:15 says Jesus went to Egypt and then came out and that fulfilled what was said by the prophet "out of Egypt I called out my son"(Hosea 11:1).Matt uses Midrash.He knew Hosea was about the Jews,called the son of God,leaving Egypt under Moses.

Here he is making a parallelism,since Jesus was the perfect son of God(holy man in the Jewish sense).I could do the same today.Tens of thousands of Jews were expelled from Egypt after 1948.Using the Midrashic expression one can say:"Here was fulfilled Hosea 11:1 of the prophet".

In John 19:28 it says Jesus drank to fulfill Scripture,saying "I'm thirsty."It's Psalm 69:22.

It's Midrash,John is referring to a parallelism in Psalm 69,not that Psalm 69 is a Messianic prophecy in itself.Proof it is a Midrashic technique is that Psalm 69:6 talks of the persons faults/sins.John only wanted to show a parallelism with verse 22,not the whole Psalm.

Mr.Abdullah quoted Jesus saying "My God and your God."True.It appears many times in Muslim literature.Jesus says he's not God.It's from John 20:17,Jesus talks to Mary Mag.The complete words are:"I'm going to my God and your God,my Father and your Father."

It's explained by the Trinity.We have:"My God and your God,my Father and your Father."It can be put as,without changing the sense as:"My God and my Father,your God and your Father."

"My God,my Father,and your God,your Father."

"My God the Father and your God the Father."It's the Trinity.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Nabeel, lets debate this either in December 2009 or sometime in 2010. This is a really good topic--

As for the debate-- Osama some advice to you my brother in Islam-- contact me before you debate-- I will provide you with good material on whatever your debating.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http:/www.answering-christian-claims.com (my site)

Fernando said...

To The Osama Abdallah The Great...

1): you cannot use one parte off the Bible in your argument and then say thate other parte is false; unless you determinate whate is true in accordance withe youre convinience or whate islam says: you habe to thake it as a global relity or leabe it... that's whie I, eben do nott beliebing the divine inspiration off the qur'an do nott say: "Well this ayha is true and this is false"... in accordance to divine revelation they are, in mie opinion, bothe false; butt I use them as equaily true in as literary and historical statement;

2): neber those first personne who brokke the Sabbath saide they were doingue it by a theological reason, and neber they saide they were doing it due to the factt they presented themselfd as the owners off the Sabbath (a prerrogatibe off God);

3): neber Jesus, our God, saide He was allowed to breakke the Sabbathe because otheres before Him had donne itt: the reason to do so thate He presented was because as the Creator and institutioner of the Sabbath (= Lord of it = God);

4): the reason Jesus refferred to those personns who, beffore Him, brokke the Sabbath was to make an hyperbolick compareson, likke: "iff those people brokke the Sabbath and did nott do itt because they owned itt, more reason I habe to do itt because I'm it's owner"

More: Aboutthe the claime you did aboutte Jesus oppening His mouthe in comparieson with Is. 53:7... in these verse it's saide the Servent, as a lamb, did not opeen His mouthe in the way to the slaughter-house nor when was in the presasence off its shearers... so (let's avoiide more deeper theological aspects first): where do you habe any evidence thate Jesus spoke in His way to the Golgoltha or when He was being putted in the Cross (=in the presasence off those who were nailling him)?

thankes for your time, and God (to my the Trinity) blees.

Fernando

p.s.: still to The Osama Abdallah The Great... it looks like you habbe a fan out there... the MuslimPhoton... gladde to you bothe...

MuslimPhantom said...

The MuslimPhoton... hahaha... I'm not the MuslimPhoton, Fernando you clown, I'm the MuslimPhantom. The one who's here to denounce the verbal abuses you Christian bloggers make against Islam and Muhammad (pbuh).

Brother Osama: I listened again to the debate: next time I would drink some water between major points you want to make: that would increase the suspense and break the ability of christian apologist follow your deep argumentation. Take care, and may Allah bless you.

Sepher Shalom said...

MuslimPhantom said: "Fernando you clown, I'm the MuslimPhantom. The one who's here to denounce the verbal abuses you Christian bloggers make against Islam"

So, let me get this straight. You are here to denounce verbal abuses, and you plan on supporting that effort by verbally abusing Fernando and calling him a "clown"? OK, that makes perfect sense [sarc].

MuslimPhantom said...

Sepher Shalom said: «You are here to denounce verbal abuses». No: I'm here, as I said, to denounce abuses against Islam and it's Prophet (pbuh) and, implicitly, against Muslim believers. I'm not concerned with happens to other realities. Please: don't make me lose my time answering to offensive claims against me, the MuslimPhantom and not, as Fernando called me, the MuslimPhoton.

Sepher Shalom said...

MuslimPhantom said: "No: I'm here, as I said, to denounce abuses against Islam and it's Prophet (pbuh) and, implicitly, against Muslim believers. I'm not concerned with happens to other realities."

So let me get this straight; you are against "verbal abuses" directed toward Muhammad, and Muslims....but verbal abuses against everyone else are just fine, and you will actively engage in them yourself? That is a horribly flawed and inconsistent position.

Also, please define what you believe constitutes a "verbal abuse". For example, if I were to say "Muhammad was a false prophet" or "Muslims are deceived and follow a false religion"...are these 'verbal abuses'?

Or, what if I affirm my understanding of the teaching of the Bible on the issue of Salvation and say something like, "Muhammad died without Yeshua as his Savior, and his destination is Hell". Is that a 'verbal abuse'? Please clarify how you define that term.

nma said...

MuslimPhantom,

You said:No: I'm here, as I said, to denounce abuses against Islam and it's Prophet (pbuh) and, implicitly, against Muslim believers.

Your Quran has many verbal abuses agaist Jews, Christians and Christianity. In fact the false statements in the Quran against Christians and Christianity are really insulting.

Fernando said...

Osama The Great Abdallah: why dis you refuse to go on the show off Doctor James White on some off the claimes you did? Maibe we all coulde learn from thate exchange off opinions... I bett the MuslimPhanton woulde.

minoria said...

About John 16:7-10 and if it's Mohammed.It only says Paracletos.It refers to it as "he" several times.Muslims says that proves it's a man.No.

Paracletos is masculine.Anybody who speaks languages that have feminine and masculine or fem,masc and neutral words knows 100% that here the Paracletos is called "he" because...the original Greek is following the rules of Greek grammar.If Paracletos in Greek were feminine it would be "she".

But let's say it's a man,why not?it still can't be Mohammed.Jesus puts a condition for Menahemana to come:"if I don't leave,the Menahemana will not come to you."

Mohammed came 600 years after Jesus.Jesus was bound to be dead by then,correct?He wasn't going to live 600,400,200 years.

If was ILLOGICAL for him to put as a condition that he had to leave or the Menahemana wouldn't arrive if he knew he would come 600 years later.Then he would have said nothing,he knew he would be dead by then.

But it makes sense if Jesus meant the Paracletos would come in the LIFETIME of the disciples:"if I don't leave,the comforter won't come to you(you,the diciples)."

I recently discovered on youtube a very pretty woman who has posted several videos.She's an ex-muslima,who has been a Christian for 2 years and is from the UK.Now she's doing the same as Nabeel,misionary work in youtube,for Muslims.She looks like Neda Soltan.God protect her.

She began a few months ago and has 5 videos.Her name is Amana Sheikh.She commented on the Arabfest event.She is very brave knowing apostates are killed.Guys,go to you tube and write:"What's my New Christian life like?" to see one of her videos.

She sure has a more spiritual life than me.And her comments are very intelligent,she does research,she's interested in evidence,doing as Nabeel,commenting on Mohammed and the Koran.Check it out.

Osama Abdallah said...

"Osama The Great Abdallah: why dis you refuse to go on the show off Doctor James White on some off the claimes you did? Maibe we all coulde learn from thate exchange off opinions... I bett the MuslimPhanton woulde"

Mr. Fernando,

I told Dr. James White that I am far too busy to just come and discuss one lone point (about the inscription on the cross). I suggested, instead, to do a debate and I promised him that I will use that point to allow him to respond to it. But he refused.


I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Really all Osama Had to do to win this debate was use Ricard Carrier's online work, Why I don't buy the resurection story.

I love Osama For the sake of Allah-- but I think he lost this debate. If only he would listen to others rather than doing his own thing.

Fernando said...

The Osama the Great Abdallah... thankes for youre explanation: so it all ends in the facte thate Doctor James White refused to debatte you... Thates a shame, a reall shame...

May God (thate for me is the Holy Trinity) bless you and your family.

Osama Abdallah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zakaria said...

Dear osama

I'm a muslim and for a muslim honesty is a principal quality. Accordingly I must say that you not only lost the debate but you appeared like a mumbling fool. I think that the christian brothers with a minimum of intelligence know that winning the debate against you doesn't prove much. He won the argument by first refering to sources that say that Jesus was crucified and by giving the impression that he wouldn't use the bible as a source. You on the other hand discussed whether the old testament talked about jesus and in what way it talked about jesus. That wasn't the topic. You should have done two things first give counterarguments to his socalled historical proof that jesus was crucified which is quite simple if you're familiar with christian history. Then you can start discussing whether he rose from the dead. That is a purely theological issue. You don't seem to be able to differentiate between theological arguments and as it were secular arguments.

Osama Abdallah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama abdullah:

I love you for the sake of islam. Your site was a major influence for me being a Muslim apologist. What I am about to say to you, Bassam zawadi and Sami Zattari will hurt your feelings but I feel the truth needs to be told.

You three have no idea what your doing. Osama, you seem to live in your own fantasy world--- relying on very very weak arguements to prove Islam. Let me ask you Osama, what does the Old Testament have to do with the crucifixion and ressurection? Pulling these verses out of context and making up interpretations dosent cut it.

As for the material on your site--- I know 12 year olds who can write and research better than you. Osama what did I tell you back in Michigan? After your debate with David Wood I said lets ALL WORK together to refute anti-Islamic claims. Me, you, Farhan qureshi, Bassam, Sami Zattari, Shadid Lewis, Jalal abdulrub, Nadir Ahmed,etc etc

Let you three don't want to do that. Rather you three want to do your own thing.

I'll talk and comment more soon

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "So my points are quite dangerous and powerful and the people here know this well. Pslam 91 is no joke, period. It is enough to destroy Christianity and prove Islam."

I am at an utter loss for how you could possibly come to any of the conclusions you state above, but that aside, what you fail to recognize is that even if you demonstrated Psalm 91 is about the Messiah, you must further demonstrate that it is not a reference to His second coming, and even if you do that, you still have the burden of proving that your hyper-literal reading is correct.

There is no doubt that the Messianic Scriptures teach a second coming of Yeshua. There is also no doubt that historically, Jewish scholars have understood the Tanach to prophesy a Mashiyach ben David [victorious King figure] and Mashiyach ben Yoseph [a suffering Servant figure]. Since Yeshua clearly came as the Suffering Servant the first time [from a textual standpoint], and clearly He will come again as the victorious King [from a textual standpoint], I would like to know how you would go about determining if Psalm 91 is about Mashiyach ben Yoseph or Mashiyach ben David? I'm curious what kind of criteria and methodology you would apply.

nma said...

Osama Abdullah wrote...

Ever since when the Christians who are polytheists according to Islam are your brothers?

That Christians are polytheists is a blatant lie or your understanding of Christianity is sickening...No Christian ever would say there are more than one God. From where did you get the idea that Christianity is polytheist?

Zakaria said...

Osama

The reason I called you a mumbling fool and for criticising your performance on the debate is not because you lost but because you cant bring yourself to accept that you lost. Brother Ehteshaam on the other hand knows exactly what he is doing and how to structure a debate. He can distinguish different kinds of arguments and use them appropriately. Not only that I admire his humility in that he himself acknowledges that he lost a debate against a christian fellow and from that realization he can improve himself.
You call me an infidel that is a very serious accusation. According to islamic tradition if someone calls another muslim kafir then one of them is surely a kafir.
Another thing my point of departure is that the people of the book are my brothers. It's a term of respect not a sign that I accept their scriptures. But know this if someone of them proves to be evil then you can rest assure that I will treat them accordingly.

minoria said...

Guys,it's not nice to use words like clown or fool,it goes against the Golden Rule.Ehteshaam says to use Carrier's arguments in a debate on the resurrection.It's been done....by Carrier himself.

Go to youtube.There's the William Craig-Richard Carrier debate.Judge for yourselves.I don't think Psalm 91 is Messianic but if it were it could be about the second coming.Never thought of that,great suggestion.

I have to add my part on Carrier.I agree with him that the hallucination theory is the best NATURALISTIC one(miracles never happen).No doubt.But using Bayes' Theorem(formula for calculating probabilities),it's very improbable.

First it has to account for a mass hallucination of the Same Thing among at least some of the first disciples.Then for the hallucination of the skeptic James.Then for the hallucination of the enemy Paul.

It gets even lower if the body of Jesus were in a mass grave or still in a tomb.Carrier gets around it by saying Paul,James and the first disciples believed in a spiritual resurrection.Even knowing the body was in a tomb or mass grave was inimportant.Their resurrected Jesus was spiritual.

Later,the second generation of Christian misunderstood them and thought it was a physical resurrection.But the linguistics is against the idea Paul and the others thought of a spiritual resurrecion.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama,

Isn't there a better way of handling a criticism from someone than doing takfeer on them?

Come on man. If I was a Muslim that would be incredibly offensive. It's also a serious thing from a historical perspectives, since historically whichever Muslim group was in power would do takfeer against their rivals in order to rally the troops to fight them based on Quran commands.

minoria said...

CARRIER AND TOMB OR NO TOMB

He thinks the empty tomb was made up.The more I think about it it sounds faulty.

PUT YOURSELF IN THE MIND OF A 1ST CENTURY PALESTINIAN JEW

1 Cor 15:3-7 was a creed written from a few months to 5 years after Jesus' death,the Jesus Seminar puts it at 2 years.It was in ARAMAIC,and in Palestine.

From 30 BC to 70 AD the Palestinian Jews did NOT put their dead in a grave.No way.But in a cave,never underground.They had bone boxes or ossuaries.

HE DIED A YEAR AGO

In the West,for us,that phrase immediately means "he is in a grave".No doubt about it.We never think "he was cremated."

For a HINDU in India it means "he was cremated",never "he is in a grave".1 Cor 15 says Jesus died and was "buried".How?In a mass grave or cave/tomb?

FOR A PALESTINIAN JEW

For him or her on first hearing the creed she/he would think "Jesus was buried=put in a cave",never "has been cremated/put in a grave underground",correct?

It did NOT have to be said,it was immediately understood,a Palestinian Jew was obviously "put in a tomb."Unless,unless,the text would specify that the burial was DIFFERENT like...er,being underground.Again,Carrier has to "put himself in their mentality".

THE SAME FOR US

"He died a year ago" automatically means grave,unless,unless the text tells us something "additional" to make us think otherwise like "died in the ocean" or "the body was burned"."Put in a grave" doesn't have to be said.

For the Greeks it was not obvious but Paul was repeating a creed he had got and translated from Aramaic to Greek.

THE 500

1 Cor 15 mentions more than 500 at one time who saw Jesus.And also James and Peter and other apostles.Skeptics say:"Paul said it,but how did those who heard him know he wasn't lying?"

Corinth was 1,000 miles from Jerusalem.At the time JAMES was living there,head of the church in Jerusalem.A person could spend alot of money and go there to ask James if it was true or....send a letter to a rabbi in Jerusalem,preferably a non-believer,and ask him to find out if:

1.It was true 1 Cor 15:3-7 was a creed of the church in Jerusalem.
2.If James really existed,if he really claimed Jesus had resurrected,if more than 500 claimed to have seen him,if Peter and the others,etc.

CASE OF YEHONAHAN

He was a man a bit younger than Jesus who was crucified at around the same time in Palestine.His bones were discovered in a bone box.They are the only archeological evidence of a crucifixion victim,because of a nail found in an ankle.

So?So he was crucified yet not put in a mass grave for criminals.So?So only those considered criminals were crucified.It shows a crucified victim could be honorably buried.Why not for Jesus?

minoria said...

To continue:

I always try the what if?What if this?What if that?

WHEN WAS THE EMPTY TOMB INVENTED?

Carrier says it was invented by Mark in 70-75 AD.But interpreting 1 Cor 15:3-7 as the Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jews would have understood it (and that's how scholars have to proceed) then buried=put in cave.

1 Cor 15 has Jesus died,was buried(put in a cave) and "woke up" on the 3rd day.To "wake up" is the opposite of "falling asleep"(dying) which means:closing your eyes,your arms and legs stop moving.The physical resurretion is clearly implied.

AGAIN PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR MENTALITY

A 1st century Palestinian Jew hearing for the FIRST time the 1 Cor 15 creed with Jesus died,buried and "woke up" would understand "wake up" as a physical resurrection.No other way.Again 1 Cor 15 are not Paul's words,but those of people who wrote in Aramaic for Jews in Palestine.

DATE OF THE INVENTION OF THE EMPTY TOMB

1 Cor 15 is from about 2 years after Jesus' death.So the empty tomb was invented not 40 years later as Carrier says.

EMPTY TOMB INVENTED BY GOSPEL WRITERS?

It appears in all 4.Carrier and others say it was nvented.So et's eliminate them.But what if we only had Paul?Nobody ever wrote a gospel.It could still be deduced.Paul gives us 1 Cor 15 and says also Jesus was crucified.

As I argued 1 Cor 15 would show empty tomb.Paul would add the detail of crucifixion.Scholars,with that little evidence,would still say:"the most logical assumption is, based on 1 Cor 15 and Paul,that Jesus had an honorable burial,no mass grave."

PLUS YEHONAHAN

Later with the evidence of him,scholars could add:"this adds credibility to the idea Jesus was put in a tomb,not a mass grave,as implied by 1 Cor 15."I think honestly Carrier is not being as logical as he should be.

Osama Abdallah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

You said:

"As for the material on your site--- I know 12 year olds who can write and research better than you. Osama what did I tell you back in Michigan? After your debate with David Wood I said lets ALL WORK together to refute anti-Islamic claims. Me, you, Farhan qureshi, Bassam, Sami Zattari, Shadid Lewis, Jalal abdulrub, Nadir Ahmed,etc etc"

Just to further prove that you're quite silly and childish, why would you want to team up with someone who even writes worse than 12-year olds? I don't get you? AND WHY DIDN'T DAVID WOOD POST MY DEBATE WITH HIM IF HE DIDN'T LOSE IN IT? Trust me, once I am finished verifying his sources, which he never gives, I'll post our debate with my commentaries in it to expose how desperate he was and how deceitful he was. I already got three points so far on him intentionally lying or making mistakes. Either way, it's bad for him. Stay tunned.

Also Gulam, stay with Nadir Ahmed and unlink my site from yours because I won't link your site, not even in a million years.


Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama,

My brother in Islam,

Please listen to me. Your not going to like what I say, But if you really love Allah and Islam listen.

You are literally the worse Islamic apologist out there. Nadir Ahmed is 1000 times better than you. Heck, even I am better than you (although I am NOT a good debater). Don't believe me? Go to my website. See how organized and neat it is. Also check out my sources. Its good scholarship.

Osama the problem you seem to be having is that you refuse to listen to others due to your ego. Me on the other hand-- I will toss away my ego and listen to others for the sake of Islam.

Let me tell you what I mean. I don't like Bassam Zawadi. Neither does Nadir Ahmed. He's extremely arrogant, offensive and rude. He also has anger issues. I find it very hard to get along with him. But for the sake of Allah and Islam, I'll put away my ill feelings towards him and still recommend his site call-to-monotheism.com because it has good material in it. He's a good apologist but I don't like him.

As for Sami Zaatari-- He's still a kid-- he's got a long way to go. However I lost all respect for him when he did the topic: Is Muhammad (p) a prophet of God? When are you and Sami going to understand this topic is tooo big to debate. Its so hard to debate-- I don't get why anyone wants to do it.

My point is put away your ego Osama. I don't want to fight you or write trash on my website about you (we're not women and we're not in High School-- only High Schoolers and Women do these fights and this drama.) We're not boys, we're men. I am man enough to put away my ego and work with you and others (okay for now let's throw out Nadir Ahmed).

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama,

Sorry for my earlier comments, but PLEASE contact me before you do something like this again. I will provide you with good material on whatever your debating.

For the sake of Allah-- I'll put aside my ego for the spread and defense of Islam, and I suggest you do the same.

As for Nadir Ahmed--- Am I the only Muslim Apologist out there who gets along with him? Farhan wants nothing to do with him. Osama wants nothing to do with him. Sami wants nothing to do with him. I don't get it, Am I the only person on the planet that can get along with him?

I get along very well and even consider Nabeel, David and Mary Jo my friends-- these people are critics of Islam.

Even David said he finds it hard to get along with him. Why? Anyways, Osama, again I am sorry--- let's put away our egos-- We have work to do-- show the evidence for Islam and refute the Christian critics of Islam.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"You are literally the worse Islamic apologist out there. Nadir Ahmed is 1000 times better than you."

Hahahhahhaaa!!!!!!!! I really needed the laugh this morning! Sure Nadir Ahmed, the internet's biggest clown is 1000 times better than me knowing that he is your teacher as you said. THE FUNNIEST THING OF ALL IS THAT YOU ARE AN INFIDEL according to Nadir Ahmed for believing in the swoon theory. So from now on, we might as well just call you "brother kafir" since your teacher considers you one.

"Osama the problem you seem to be having is that you refuse to listen to others due to your ego. Me on the other hand-- I will toss away my ego and listen to others for the sake of Islam."

No, I refuse to listen to clowns like you and your teacher, and you and your teacher are the biggest ones out there.

"Let me tell you what I mean. I don't like Bassam Zawadi. Neither does Nadir Ahmed. He's extremely arrogant, offensive and rude. He also has anger issues. I find it very hard to get along with him."

Brother Bassam is quite professional, calm, nice, polite and helpful when you need him. He is far from being arrogant, unless of course, you consider his despise to your teacher WHO CONSIDERS YOU AND INFIDEL arrogance.

"As for Sami Zaatari-- He's still a kid-- he's got a long way to go."

Why are you bringing Bassam and Sami into your crap here and before everyone and in public?? Are you just a dog desperate to bark to be heard? Now Sami is a kid to you? Sami is a great man and a great debator. It is you and your teacher, WHO AGAIN IRONICALLY CONSIDERS YOU AN INFIDEL, are the kids and the clowns.

"My point is put away your ego Osama."

I have no ego, but this doesn't mean that I have to become a mat for you to step on and to bark at me and now at my friends Bassam and Sami.

"As for Nadir Ahmed--- Am I the only Muslim Apologist out there who gets along with him? Farhan wants nothing to do with him. Osama wants nothing to do with him. Sami wants nothing to do with him. I don't get it, Am I the only person on the planet that can get along with him?"

Man, don't you get it??? I mean, shouldn't this by itself sound alarms to you against this self-proclaimed MONKEY as he names himself "MonkeyPox", Nadir Ahmed? AND AGAIN, you are an infidel to him. My advise to you is to stop making yourself looking like a total Nadir Ahmed, ass that is. Just drop it and again and again, PLEASE!!!!, JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

minoria said...

THE FRIEND OF A FRIEND OF A FRIEND

Strange world.Ehteshaam is the friend of Mary Jo,David and Nabeel.Nabeel and David are friends of Michael Licona.He mentions them in the Acknowledgment Section in his book "Paul Meets Muhammad",an imaginary debate between them on the resurrection.

In fact,Nabeel,then a Muslim ,had been asked to check Licona's Mohammed arguments.Licona is a friend of Richard Carrier.So Ehteshaam could easily get to know him personally through Nabeel-David-Mike Licona.

HIJAB IN THE NT

I think Ehteshaam's comment that Osama's dispute with him should not be because they are not women or in high school is in the "we're not women" part a cultural thing.

Just like Paul and his liking of HIJAB.

1 Cor 11:4-7 is about a woman covering her hair in the meeting of believers.A MAN shouldn't cover his head.We know it refers to the ekklesia(assembly of Christians) or "church" because of 1 Cor 11:16.

CHURCH

EKKLESIA just meant any meeting of people in Greek:for sports,poetry reading,etc.It didn't mean a religious building.Otherwise Paul would have said TEMPLE.

HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S A PURELY CULTURAL THING

It's rare for the NT to have a cultural thing but here is one case.Paul is against MEN covering their hair for WORSHIP,correct?Yet then and today Jewish MEN COVER their hair when they pray and in the synagogue(er,for worship).

Paul knew this 100%.Yet he liked it otherwise,a personal preference.So his liking of women having hijab in the worship service is his own thing.Not obligatory.I have a bit more to say about 1 Cor 11:3/11:7/11:10 but later.For that one has to know the OT.

EVEN HITLER KNEW

AUGUST KUBIZEK was the only friend Hitler had as a young man.In his "The Young Hitler I Knew" he says one day Hitler and he went to a synagogue.Hitler told him "Whatever you do don't take off your hat." And Kubizek says "And effectively all
the men were wearing hats."

Zakaria said...

Osama said

'And to Zakaria the infidel-liar, I didn't call you an infidel because I knew you were a Muslim. I am not Nadir Ahmed who called even Shabir Ally an infidel. I rather called you an infidel because I saw in your writings that you are either a hindu, christian or a jewish Islam-hater. I get this junk every once in a while in my emails. So I can smell your stink from a mile away.'

Go ahead call me a kafir. Every time you call me a kafir you commit haram and inshallah i get hasanat.

The funny thing is your ego which Gulam so eloquently speaks about. Since when does it make you an islam-hater when criticizing you. If that is not the criteria you used maybe it was because i wrote christian brothers. Since when does it take you out of islam if you call a christian, brother.

You cant on the one hand claim to be a muslim apologist and on the other hand make takfir on muslims just because they criticize you. As soon as you go public and represent islam you must be able to take criticizm. If not for your own sake in order to improve, then for the sake of islam. Otherwise any clown can go public and represent islam and give muslims a bad name without any consequences whatsoever.

If I really was an islam-hater I would encourage you rather than criticize you and I would criticize Gulam instead.
The reason why I'm impressed by him is that he's humble and based on what I've seen on his website he has a scholarly approach. I'm not saying that he's a scholar but his approach is scholarly.

thanks,

Osama Abdallah said...

Zakaria,

Are you Nadir Ahmed? If not, then I don't know what are you talking about. All of your points don't apply to me. I am humble, I listen to advises, and I don't really care whether or not I won or lost the debate with Nabeel according to you. In the end, it is pleasing Allah Almighty and converting people to Islam are what really determine the victory from loss. I don't play boxing matches with my opponents in my debates. It's not a fight between me and my opponent, and therefore, I don't care if I "win" or "lose" points. All I care about is prove Islam, and I believe I did by refuting and exposing Isaiah 53's deliberate mistranslations and demonstrating Psalm 91, 116 and 118 to be for Jesus Christ according to the New Testament itself.

Having established this, I strongly believe that I have demonstrated that Islam's position about Christ never was crucified is SOUNDLY FOUND in the Bible's Old Testament. The OT prophesied that Christ WILL NOT GET CRUCIFIED. I also demonstrated that the New Testament's accounts and history are all corrupt. If I indeed was able to establish and prove this, which I believe I have, then I have clearly proven Islam's claims to be Divine Revelations from Allah Almighty and not lies that were invented by a man in Arabia.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Zakaria said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama,

I am an infedel? Aren't you the one who insulted Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on your website? Didn't you say he suffers from Alzhmerers (or something like that)? Aren't you the one who rejects Hadith? Aren't you the one who made up vicious lies against Jalal Abdulrub? Aren't you the one that says even Satan will go to heaven? According to Islam-- your the infedel.

As for Sami and Bassam, These two are very hard to get along with in person. Both of them are very arrogant and just plain rude at times. I don't want anything to do with them... and yes Sami is a kid. He's still very young. So his little boy ego is understandable. Plus his arguments for Islam are weak-- just see his debate with David Wood.

I am a clown? How so? Osama no disrespect but your a child and your a clown. Nobody takes your site seriously. Freethought Mecca played a joke on you and after you fell for it, nobody took your site seriously again. Nobody with a functioning brain would've fell for that fake news story of the 90 foot tall Adam myth. You seem to have the intelligence of a 10 year old boy. I remember I was on the phone with Pastor Geogre Saige and even he was making fun of you. I also remember David Wood telling me not to make fun of you before your debate on Tuesday.

Osama, you know what your nick name on the internet is? Its Osama the Quack. I swear to Allah. What does that tell you? And since when is Nadir my teacher? He's a friend and I don't agree 100% with him. Richard Carrier is more of a teacher to me than Nadir is.

Man, why am I even fighting with you? It's like I am back in High School or my early years in College when some women wanted to pick a fight with me, after I teased them about their weight. What did I tell you Osama? Put away your childness and your ego. Work with me and it'll be a game changer. Keep working alone and have Christian Critics keep being a loser and having David and Nabeel beating you, making fun of you and defeating Islam.

Osama, if You really love Islam and Allah, put away your ego and work with me. I am sorry for any mockery but seriously. Wake up and smell the coffee, look at what's happening-- Islam is falling because of men like you, with your childish ego. Put it away, and work with people like me and Nadir for the sake of Islam not your own fame and fortune.

Am I going to ask everyone here, whos site is better mine or Osama's? You vote.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama said:

I strongly believe that I have demonstrated that Islam's position about Christ never was crucified is SOUNDLY FOUND in the Bible's Old Testament. The OT prophesied that Christ WILL NOT GET CRUCIFIED.

My Response: Osama when are you going to get it? THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Are you this stupid? This is why many people here call you Osama the Quack-- you live in your fantasy world. Man, you insult Prophet Muhammad (p), you come up with the most silly arguments for Islam and you expect Christians and Muslims to take you seriously. There's nothing in the Old Testament about Jesus. These so called 300 propchies are extremely silly. No Jews in their right mind believes that Jesus is in the O.T.

Osama please contact me before you do something like this again. Stop making Islam look bad.

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

You're obviously losing the argumentation, which is why you're now resorting to the years-old lies that your master Nadir Ahmed had invented and lied about. The most ironic thing of all is that you came up to me and gave me a big warm hug after my debate with David Wood. Obviously, you're a coward and a double-faced snake and a hypocrite. Otherwise, why would you hug a person who insults the Prophet of Islam? You know you're a liar and you're desperate.

You, clown, further said:


"My Response: Osama when are you going to get it? THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Are you this stupid? This is why many people here call you Osama the Quack-- you live in your fantasy world."

I don't know, I think I have to ask the kindegarten questions here since you seem to be FAR MORE STUPID THAN NADIR AHMED HIMSELF (AMAZING INDEED!!):

1- Have you heard of a chapter called Isaiah 53?

2- Have you heard of the film "The Passion of Christ" by Mel Gibson? Have you seen the narration of Isaiah 53 in the film as a prophecy of the Messiah's crucifixion for people's sins?

3- Do you know that Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins?

4- Do you know who Jesus Christ was?


I am not joking Gulam! You seem to be that stupid and I must ask these questions, especially when you consider Nadir Ahmed as your teacher.

And one last note: Please wear a deodorant next time, because your body odor was bad (by Allah Almighty I am not lying or kidding!). I've written a long article about the filthy likes of you YEARS AGO AT: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bad_smell.htm.

So much for your cheap lies about me insulting the Prophet of Islam. It is the foul stinks like you who insult Islam and keep people away from Islam.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"Remember one thing you're a public figure and a da3i. Unless you really repent for calling a muslim a kafir and for other attacks on muslims and start listening to advice i'm sorry to say and may Allah protect me from it your'e doomed. A good da3i takes criticism even when it's couched in immature namecallings like mumbling fool and is grateful for it."

Zakaria,

Are you just a brainless robot repeating his nonesense over and over endlessly? Everything you're saying about me is wrong. Unless you're an infidel who's pretending to be a Muslim here on this board, then please brother, just back off! I never declared you a kafir knowing that you're a Muslim.
How many times do I have to keep repeating this to you? Just let me see what this Nadir Ahmed's slave has to further say from absurdities. WHO KNOWS, MAY BE WE'LL SEE FROM HIM THINGS LIKE:

"OSAMA YOU FOOL! THERE IS NO SUCH THING THAT EXISTS CALLED THE BIBLE!"

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama said:

You're obviously losing the argumentation, which is why you're now resorting to the years-old lies that your master Nadir Ahmed had invented and lied about. The most ironic thing of all is that you came up to me and gave me a big warm hug after my debate with David Wood. Obviously, you're a coward and a double-faced snake and a hypocrite. Otherwise, why would you hug a person who insults the Prophet of Islam? You know you're a liar and you're desperate.

My Response: Can you prove Nadir and Jalal Abdulrub lied about what you said about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?

Also how Am I a coward? I debated didn't I? How am I A double-faced snake and a hypocrite? I gave you a hug because for years I admired your courage and your (poor but admirable) defense of Islam. Like I said before your site was a major influence on me being a Muslim Apologist. I think the reason why your going after me is because I said you lost and told you to stop doing your own thing. That's how this all started. Seriously do you attack anyone who critizes you? Many people critize you Osama. Even young and confused Christian "apologists" like Keith Truth make fun of you:

http://keithtruth.blogspot.com/2009/06/osama-abdullah-epitome-of-muslim.html

Also how am I losing the arguementation?

Also STOP saying that Nadir is my teacher. Like I said before I don't consider Nadir Ahmed my teacher.

Osama said:

You, clown, further said:

"My Response: Osama when are you going to get it? THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. Are you this stupid? This is why many people here call you Osama the Quack-- you live in your fantasy world."

I don't know, I think I have to ask the kindegarten questions here since you seem to be FAR MORE STUPID THAN NADIR AHMED HIMSELF (AMAZING INDEED!!):

1- Have you heard of a chapter called Isaiah 53?

2- Have you heard of the film "The Passion of Christ" by Mel Gibson? Have you seen the narration of Isaiah 53 in the film as a prophecy of the Messiah's crucifixion for people's sins?

3- Do you know that Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins?

4- Do you know who Jesus Christ was?

I am not joking Gulam! You seem to be that stupid and I must ask these questions, especially when you consider Nadir Ahmed as your teacher.

My Response:

How am I a clown, you fat blob?

1) Yes I heard of Isaiah 53. The problem is this prophecy is referring to the Jewish People and not any messiah. Read this Osama: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html

2) Mel Gibson is a Quack.

3) Yes I know that. I also know from the New Testament Jesus said that he came to furfil the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) and that Matthew 19 Jesus says in order to gain salvation you must obey the commandments.

4) Yes I know Jesus was a human and a great prophet of Allah.

Osama said:

And one last note: Please wear a deodorant next time, because your body odor was bad (by Allah Almighty I am not lying or kidding!). I've written a long article about the filthy likes of you YEARS AGO AT

My Response: I wear Deodorant, a lot of it. Remembered I wore Axe before driving to see your debate. Moreover what does that have to do with anything?

Osama said:

So much for your cheap lies about me insulting the Prophet of Islam. It is the foul stinks like you who insult Islam and keep people away from Islam.

My Response: I NEVER said Prophet Muhammad (p) had alzhemiers disease. I NEVER said Black Magic doesn't exist. I NEVER made up lies about Jalal Abdulrub. I never called the Prophetic Sunnah trash, I NEVER disregarded Hadith. I NEVER insulted Islam or kept people away from Islam. Can you say the same Osama?

Yours in Islam,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

minoria said...

It was good David set up a link to Mr.Paul William's blog.Then all can read and reread and still reread both sides.Then come to their conclusions.

I sure hope Osama and Ehteshaam reconcile soon.It would be nice,hopefully soon before September.I am not convinced by Carrier's arguments like Ehteshaam is.I've given some reasons.Again,one should see the Craig-Carrier debate on youtube,on the resurrection.

Analyze it.Take down notes.Hear it again and then again.And hear other arguments.

ABOUT 1 COR 11:3

It says God is head of the Messiah.Since Paul believed Jesus was God the headship was in effect an equality.

It says the Messiah is the head of "every man".And the women?

ADAM MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD

Paul was a Torah expert.Adam in Hebrew means "man".The Torah says in Genesis 1:26-27/5:1-2 that God created adam(man) in his image,"male and female he created them".Verify.

Man in the OT means "male and female" in many passages,it's a general term.Read Gen 9:6 where only man is mentioned,but we know the "man" there is "male and female."

Gen 9:6:"If someone spills the blood of man...because God made man in his image."

SO?

So,the Messiah is the head of every man means of every male and female.

HEAD OF EVERY WOMAN IS MAN

The Greek word GYNOS means woman but it was used in a popular sense to mean "wife".There is also a specific koine Greek word for wife.

Here it by logic refers to a wife.How is a son going to be the head of his mother,or his grown-up sister?The husband is the titular head of a couple,but in the NT it is subject to the Golden Rule,to conditions that establish equality.

1 COR 11:7

Paul says a man shouldn't cover his head (he didn't like the Jewish custom of men covering their heads for worship)because he is the image of God.

Again,knowing Genesis,we know he knew the Torah included women as being in the image of God.

WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF MAN

He adds "while woman is the glory of man".Again,gynos or woman was used as wife(like in French).Fernando can testify it's true.He lives in Europe and knows the Spanish of Spain,plus French.

In French "epouse" means wife.But hardly anybody uses it.All say "femme"(woman)."Elle est ma femme,she is my woman (wife)."

In Spain(but not in Latinamerica)it's the same(Ella es la mujer de Pedro,She is the woman(wife) of Peter).There is a word for wife(esposa)and wide used in Latinamerica but less in Spain.

SO?

So,the phrase refers to a wife covering her head because in Paul's personal opinion it was cool for a wife to do so,"the wife is the glory of man".

1 COR 11:10

"Because of this...woman should have it(the hijab)on her head as a sign of AUTHORITY".

I used to think it meant(as in my first thought on this in a message to Mary Jo)that it was saying the veil meant a sign of the authority of the husband over the wife(but still under very strict conditions,like in Ephesians 5 and the Golden Rule).Now I don't.

WHAT KIND OF AUTHORITY?

Reading others who know the Greek,the sign of exausia or authority signified by the veil on her head means "the authority that the WOMAN HAS,not authority held over her."That includes the authoity to prophesize(give the message of God)in a meeting of worship.

Osama Abdallah said...

"My Response: I NEVER said Prophet Muhammad (p) had alzhemiers disease. I NEVER said Black Magic doesn't exist. I NEVER made up lies about Jalal Abdulrub. I never called the Prophetic Sunnah trash, I NEVER disregarded Hadith. I NEVER insulted Islam or kept people away from Islam. Can you say the same Osama?"

Gulam,

Obviously lying is a creed to you. Let me silence your garbage one by one:

1- The Prophet lost memory. He thought that he was doing things that he never did. I gave the theory that he might've been losing memory due to old age. What is wrong with this?

2- Black magic can never effect anyone unless Allah Almighty Wills it. If one loses memory it doesn't necessarily have to mean that he is influenced by magic. There is little evidence to prove that the Prophet was influenced by magic or he even lost memory. But be as it may, why should we accept that he was influenced by magic?

3- About the lies about Abualrub, tells us exactly how did you come to learn about it?

4- As to calling the Prophetic Sunnah trash, I never once said that. I said that false hadiths do make Islam look like you.

5- As to discarding or disregarding Hadiths, again, if it's a doubtful hadith, then I have no regard for it.

6- As to insulting Islam and keeping people away from Islam, yes you do through your foul smell.


As to the infidels who supposedly have no regard for me, I find it interesting that you're using infidels to prove your point against me. If anything, it is a compliment. But who are you to understand.

So tell us Gulam, does the Bible exist today? And yes, you did smell very bad when I met you, and I've written a lengthy article about stinkies like you years ago who do hurt Islam through their foul odor.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"1) Yes I heard of Isaiah 53. The problem is this prophecy is referring to the Jewish People and not any messiah. Read this Osama: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html"

Christians don't buy this. They believe that Isaiah 53 is speaking about the Messiah. They also link much of the chapters of Psalm to the Messiah as well. So me linking Psalm 91, which the New Testament also linked it to him, to Jesus Christ is sound and strong. So for you to say that THE OLD TESTAMENT IS IRRELEVANT is a false statement.

Now Gulam the foul-mouthed trash, you took us to different topics and you attacked different people (Bassam, Sami, me and others). Will you now stop your rabid barking, or should I continue to embarrass you further?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

From your link: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html, we read:

"To summarize -- Isaiah 53 says: The neighboring kings confess: They (Israel) bore the suffering which we deserved, while we thought them afflicted by God; that the sufferer described (i.e., Israel) grew up in the presence of God, as a root out of the dry ground; that he was despised and rejected; that his countenance was so marred as scarce to retain the human form; that he (i.e., some Israelites) actually suffered as martyrs; that he (i.e., therefore, these who died or who were exiled) actually suffered death, and was buried with the rich; that kings (when the messiah came) would acknowledge him (Israel); and that he should intercede for the transgressors."

That is not true at all, because Isaiah 53 is speaking about one servant, and not many as one unity. In either case, it is important to refute Isaiah 53 regardless whether you want to accept this Jew's twisted interpretation or not.

Again, Isaiah 53 doesn't speak about the Messiah literally dying, and Psalm 91, 116 and 118 further prove that he won't get crucified or killed:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm

Did you even read the link that you gave?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Furthermore from your link:

"Who then is the servant? Though some Jewish scholars have said he will be the Messiah, more likely the chapter does not refer to an individual person at all. Isaiah himself identifies Israel as the servant of HaShem...."

Even the author admits that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah by some Jewish scholars.

The point is this: You can't go around barking like a rabid dog and calling people fools and stupid because they do not buy a point that even its people are divided among themselves regarding it.

But then again, who are you to understand?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

To My Brother Osama Abdullah:

I apologize for my previous comments. I suggest we stop fighting and insulting with one another on this thread, this is what the enemies of Islam want.

I also apologize for bringing up past things you said. Please accept my apology and know I am willing to work with you in order to spread and defend the word of Islam-- the only religion with evidence for itself and the only true religion of Allah Almighty.

So Brother Osama Abdullah let me remind you of what the Quran says:

Repel evil with that which is best: We are well acquainted with the things they say. (Quran 23:96)

Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate! (Quran 41:34)

So I am sorry Osama. Let's work together for the defense of Islam

Yours in Islam,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

All,

Regarding my previous beef with Jalal Abualrub that this desperate liar, Gulam, whose body odor stank very bad when I met him, is resurrecting here is what Jalal says about me TODAY:

http://islamlife.com/religion2/component/content/article/56-news/659-good-news-for-muslims-good-news-for-hostile-non-muslims

What you hear from this clown is years-old theories that I put forth after research, which by the way I didn't committed myself to them such as the Prophet of Islam, peace be upon him, having alzheimers disease. I never commited to the Prophet having that disease, but rather gave a theory that the Prophet might have had a temporary memory loss due to old age. Whether I was right or wrong, it didn't make me a person who supposedly insulted the Prophet. I find it quite ludicrous that this joker, Gulam, doesn't find an insult in the Hadiths when they say that the Prophet was betwitched by magic which caused him to have some memory loss, but yet, he finds a big insult on the Prophet and uses it against me when I suggested that the Prophet wasn't bewitched by anyone, but rather might have had some temporary memory loss due to his old age, especially when knowing that this incident happened during his last years. I said this NOT BECAUSE I WAS ASHAMED OF THE PROPHET, BUT RATHER BECAUSE THE SOURCES' CLAIMS JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO ADD UP, especially when knowing that their are conflicting reports regarding it.

In any rate, I just find you to be quite a ludicrous and irresponsible clown, Gulam the filthy clown, especially when all of these are long gone along time ago. Again, everyone, please visit the link above to see what brother Jalal Abualrub and the Salafies and the rest of the Sunnis are saying about me today.

Now get lost to Hell Gulam with that other loser of yours, Nadir the clown Ahmed. You too make a perfect partnership in a circus.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

osama,

I already apologized to you. I suggest you accept the apology and we move on. There's no need to make up lies about me---I already said I don't associate with Nadir Ahmed. I already said I wear a lot of deodorant. Read the link I gave you, in full.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam

minoria said...

What Osama said is correct that not all Jewish interpretations say Isaiah 53 is talking about the entire Jewish people.We have:

1.TARGUM:interpretations,translations and paraphrases in Aramaic of the OT.From the time of Jesus more or less.Very highly regarded by religious Jews.

Not a marginal work like the books of the Essenes in Qmran.Isaiah 9 (now the rabbis say it refers to King Hezekiah) and Isaiah 53 are said to refer to the MESSIAH.

2.TALMUD:Isaiah 53 is said to refer to an INDIVIDUAL(Messiah,Moses,Jeremiah,etc)and only once to a group.

3.LUBAVITCHER HASSIDIM:they said it was about the MESSIAH.It was about their leader Rabbi SCHNEERSON.

Most of the time the Jewish interpretations say it refers to an INDIVIDUAL(the Messiah?).

There is more but that's ok for now.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I take back all the bad things said about Bassam Zawadi and Osama Abdullah. Osama let's work together for the cause of Islam

As for Nadir Ahmed---I don't associate myself with him. DAVID WOOD/NABEEL QURESHI If you two are reading this please do a post on this blog saying I don't associate with Nadir Ahmed. I will pay lots of money for you two to do so.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Zakaria said...

Gulam

While you're at it why not take back what you've said about nadir and other muslims. Or does the clown osama deserve special treatment. I don't see why nabeel and wood must write on their blog that you disassociate yourself from nadir. Not only that, you will also pay them alot of money.
Either you like to do some binge drinking now and again and accordingly wrote this last comment under the influence of alcohol. Or somebody has threatened you. Be a man! This is not a Stephen King novel you don't have to be afraid of the Clown(osama).

Vizier said...

Osama uses the old testament a lot to refute the truth about Jesus. That makes me wonder why a Muslim would place so much faith in the old testament. The Jews are great believers in the old testament. Is he part Jewish? If Jesus were not the Messiah sent to die for us, then the New Testament is not true. The only truth would be the old testament
and definitely not the quaran. If he believes the old testament, he should know that not even one of God's names are Allah. If he doen't believe in the God of the Bible, then why is he quoting the words?

Osama Abdallah said...

"Gulam

While you're at it why not take back what you've said about nadir and other muslims. Or does the clown osama deserve special treatment. I don't see why nabeel and wood must write on their blog that you disassociate yourself from nadir. Not only that, you will also pay them alot of money.
Either you like to do some binge drinking now and again and accordingly wrote this last comment under the influence of alcohol. Or somebody has threatened you. Be a man! This is not a Stephen King novel you don't have to be afraid of the Clown(osama)."

Zakaria (Nadir Ahmed),

I knew that you stank worse than Gulam. It is clear that you are non other than the clown Nadir Ahmed, the biggest clown ever appeared on the internet. I love it when you said that Gulam is under the influence of alcohol. Like I told him, you two make great partners in a circus.


Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"Osama uses the old testament a lot to refute the truth about Jesus. That makes me wonder why a Muslim would place so much faith in the old testament. The Jews are great believers in the old testament. Is he part Jewish? If Jesus were not the Messiah sent to die for us, then the New Testament is not true. The only truth would be the old testament
and definitely not the quaran. If he believes the old testament, he should know that not even one of God's names are Allah. If he doen't believe in the God of the Bible, then why is he quoting the words?"

Vizier,

We believe that the Bible along with the outside Manuscripts of the Jews and Christians contain Divine Truth from GOD Almighty, and also contain falsehood from man. I simply quoted what clearly stated the the MESSIAH WON'T GET CRUCIFIED from the Old Testament.
This doesn't have to mean that I am a believer in the Old Testament's texts. I only pointed out the contradictions and ample mistranslations in the texts of the Bible.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"The only truth would be the old testament
and definitely not the quaran. If he believes the old testament, he should know that not even one of God's names are Allah. If he doen't believe in the God of the Bible, then why is he quoting the words?"

Vizier,

Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/allah.htm to see how Allah Almighty was mentioned many times in the Bible and is also the GOD of the Bible.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Zakaria said...

Dear Osama

It's quite easy to verify if I am Nadir Ahmed. Request the blogg administrators to tell you what country my IP address originates from.
Why are you so obsessed by body odour. It seems you have some sort of a body odour fetisch.
If you believe that the bible contains divine revelation. How do you determine which parts that do and which parts that don't.
The reason why you focused on isaiah is that you are too lazy or too incompetent to acquire a wider arsenal of arguments. You admitt it yourself in your comments to the debate. 'I should have done this and that'. Why didn't you?
You stood there reading from your computer mumbling and going 'eeeh' like a posterboy for 'how not to do a presentation'.

Then you have the audacity to claim that you won the debate. You say that the main thing is to do dawa not win a debate. Well you judge how effective your dawa is by looking at the arguments you use, how you present your arguments and your akhlaq. You fail miserably on all points in this particular debate and in the way you treat people who don't agree with you. In reality you do not do dawa inviting people to islam your dawa discourages people from becoming muslims ( Here I only refer to your debate with nabeel and the way you address people such as Gulam and other people who you for some reason don't like).
However, I must also be fair you have done a lot to invite people to islam by for instance your website and may Allah reward you for that. The only thing you need to do in order to be more effective is to improve your debating skills and your akhlaq. Do not accept a debate proposal if you're not 100% prepared and know exactly what you are doing.

From your dear brother in Islam

Osama Abdallah said...

"The reason why you focused on isaiah is that you are too lazy or too incompetent to acquire a wider arsenal of arguments."

Isaiah 53 is always used by Christians among each others to silence the arguments of those who use the historical arguments to refute the crucifixion. Isaiah 53 really undermines these arguments. Also, the problem with the historical arguments is that they tend to be atheistic and even go as far as claiming that Christ never even existed. So you can see how easily a Christian could dismiss them as invalid arguments, or even arguments not worthy of listening to. As a Muslim, I also shouldn't rely on these arguments 100%. All I have to do, instead, is refute the so-called "concrete base" of the crucifixion and resurrection that supposedly exists in the Old Testament (Isaiah 53 and Jonah's story that supposedly refers to the resurrection, and the Psalm chapters that are used to referring to the Messiah), and demonstrate that the New Testament's history and accounts are all doubtful and corrupt. IF I ACCOMPLISH THIS, THEN I BELIEVE I HAVE ESTABLISHED ISLAM'S CLAIMS FROM THE VERY HEART OF THE BIBLE. Psalm 91, 116 and 118 are clear proofs that the Messiah won't get crucified. Isaiah 53 does not state at all that he will be killed for people's sins, and Jonah's story doesn't refer to any resurrection. On the contrary, it refutes the resurrection account as I demonstrated from the debate.

What Gulam and others suggest is to dodge altogether the Old Testament, or dismiss Isaiah 53 to be even referring to the Messiah altogether and go from there. This argumentation is easily rejected by Christians and is not taken seriously by most of them. What I did, instead, is go to these concrete chapters and demonstrate WITH TRUTH AND LOGIC that if anything they only prove Islam and disprove Christianity.

Have a good day,

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "We believe that the Bible along with the outside Manuscripts of the Jews and Christians contain Divine Truth from GOD Almighty, and also contain falsehood from man. I simply quoted what clearly stated the the MESSIAH WON'T GET CRUCIFIED from the Old Testament."

Once again, please explain to us all EXACTLY HOW you determine which parts of the Bible are authentic?

I don't think you possibly have an even semi-logical answer for this, but would like to hear it just in case.

[My guess is that you use the Shabir Ally method: That which agrees with the Quran is true, and that which disagrees is not]

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "What I did, instead, is go to these concrete chapters and demonstrate WITH TRUTH AND LOGIC that if anything they only prove Islam and disprove Christianity."

Actually Osama, if you accomplished that [and as of yet you aren't even close], if you accomplished that you will have proven Rabbinic Judaism to be true. Keep up your wild goose chase Osama, and if by some miracle you succeed you will have given Christians a good reason to convert to Judaism :-)

When you attack the death of Yeshua on the cross as our atoning sacrifice, you are actually pushing Christians to Rabbinic Judaism, NOT Islam.

Zakaria said...

Dear Osama

Your answer was to the point and clear. Please build on what you've just said here in future debates. A outline the so called historical facts and their weaknesses. One of which is that based on historical evidence you can claim that Jesus did not exist. Then you move on to the Bible and pull the old testament evidence from under their feet.
Another thing Nabeel &CO were allowed to set the frame of the debate by anticipating your arguments and simply determine the criteria for judging the veracity of jesus resurrection. Accordingly, next time I suggest that you clearly state why you don't accept these kind of historical criteria and the conclusions drawn from them. If you do that you can focus on your arguments without giving the impression that you cant address your opponent's argument.
I hope we be friends for the sake of Islam. Let's burry our disagreements and cooperate. I'll give you an proposal, I can supply you with advice on how to structure a debate and if think the advice is good then act on it if not then ignore it. No strings attached. I wrote you an email some time ago so you might still have my address. If not I can send you my address to you. But only if you are willing to.

take care

minoria said...

It was about time I addressed Isaiah 53 again.The argument is simple.Either it's an INDIVIDUAL or the Jewish people.

GOD'S PROMISE TO HIS PEOPLE

As MICHAEL BROWN pointed out,in the OT God makes a promise:if the Jewish people obey the Torah,then they will prosper and be protected.

If not,then they will be punished.Making Isaiah 53 mean "Jewish people" makes God a deceiver,a liar.

ISRAEL

One idea,accepted by a few,is that God sometimes punishes an INNOCENT to bring out good in the future.So the Holocaust was the the unjust death of Jewry but it gave rise to Israel.It's an effort to answer the why of the event.

ISAIAH 53 AND ISRAEL

So here an innocent one is punished but Israel is born.Again,such an idea makes the solemn promise of God to his people a lie.The promise was if his people were just then they would be protected.

minoria said...

To continue:

In the Jewish website Messiahtruth.com they argue Isaiah 53 means "Jewish people".

HOW THEY DIVIDE ISAIAH 53

The whole modern Jewish argument given in the site rests on the following: the prophecy begins in Isaiah 52:13 and ends in Isaiah 53:12 ( which is the end of Isaiah 53 ). We have:

1. From Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12-15 GOD speaks. ( I agree ).
2. From Isaiah 53:1-8 it is the GENTILE NATIONS or non-Jews who are speaking(but for Christians it's not the GENTILES talking.It's ISAIAH).
3. From Isaiah 53:9-12 it is GOD again. But in the link it is also said that the speaker in Isaiah 53:9-12 is Isaiah in other Jewish interpretations.

SERVANT OF ISAIAH 53 IS INNOCENT

In the Jewish interpretation the servant is INNOCENT and I agree, the text makes that very clear. The detail that ruins the Jewish interpretation is that of Isaiah 53:6. In their website they give 2 translations of it. I will show that BOTH go CONTRARY to Judaism if you accept that Isaiah 53:1-8 is the GENTILES SPEAKING.

IT IS BECAUSE OF THE PHRASE " TRANSGRESSION OF MY PEOPLE " THAT OBLIGATORILY ISAIAH 53:1-8 HAS TO BE THE GENTILES SPEAKING IF ONE ACCEPTS THAT THE SERVANT=JEWISH PEOPLE:

I agree Isaiah 53:1-8 are the words of a MAN since it has words like " surely HE ( NOTE: the servant ) took our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him...the punishment that brought us peace was upon him....we all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us turned his own way. "

GOD would not say " we all have gone astray. "

THE CHRISTIAN IDEA

Then if it is by Isaiah ( according to Christians ) we have that " transgression of my people " in Isaiah 53:8 means " transgression of my people, of the people of Isaiah, who are the Jews. "

So that would ELIMINATE the idea that in Isaiah 53 servant= Jewish people since in Isaiah 53 we have " he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth " making the servant innocent of transgression.

THE PRESENT RABBINIC IDEA

So that is why they have to say Isaiah 53:8 is the Gentiles and not Isaiah who is speaking. There the Gentiles say " trangression of my people" MEANING " trangression of my people, of the non-Jews ( like in the Spanish Inquisition, Russian pogroms, Holocaust, etc ) against the innocent servant ( Jewish people ). "

minoria said...

THE 2 TEXTS OF ISAIAH 53:6 IN THE JEWISH TRANSLATION:

In Messiahtruth.com they say Isaiah 53:6 can be translated 2 ways.Either way it can be applied to Jesus:

" We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the LORD " inflicted upon HIM "( NOTE: the servant= innocent Jewish people ) the iniquity of us all. " ( note: the persecution of the Jews by us, non-Jews ).

" WE all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and LORD
" accepted HIS prayers ( NOTE: the prayers of the servant=Jewish people )for " the iniquity of all of us(of us,Gentiles) "

OPTION 1: " THE LORD INFLICTED UPON HIM ( servant= Jewish people ) THE INIQUITIES ( sins, crimes ) OF US ALL. "

In Messiahtruth it talks at length about the unjust persecution of the Jews by the non-Jews. And they say the servant in Isaiah 53 means the Jewish people and that the servant is innocent ( I agree with the second part ).

The phrase " the Lord inflicted " means God PUNISHES the servant even though he is innocent. That is theologically CONTRARY to Judaic theology. In the OT God punishes the Jews when they have been evil, NEVER when they are innocent.

INIQUITIES OF US(THE GENTILES)

The phrase " the iniquities of us all " means, accepting it is the Gentiles speaking, that here the Gentiles are referring to crimes that they commited against the Jews ( the Spanish Inquisition, Russian pogroms, the Holocaust, etc ).

AGAIN ABOUT THE PROMISE

Then, why would God punish the SERVANT ( Jewish people ) for crimes commited by the non-Jews? In Judaic theology he is supposed to punish the non-Jews, the sinners, for their sins, not the innocent part.He made a specific promise of protection.

CAN IT APPLY TO JESUS? WHERE THE SERVANT=JESUS:

If one says " the Lord inflicted upon Jesus the iniquities of us all " then it is in concord with the ATONEMENT, where an innocent man bore the sins of the whole world.


OPTION 2: " THE LORD ACCEPTED HIS PRAYER ( the prayer of the servant, Jewish people ) FOR THE INIQUITIES ( sins, crimes ) OF US ALL. "

Isaiah 53 is a prophecy and it is supposed to OBLIGATORILY come true since it is the PAST TENSE.

There in Isaiah 53:6 we have the passage just quote and in the end of Isaiah 53, Isaiah 53:12 it has " by his knowledge my SERVANT will justify many and he will bear their iniquities. Therefore I will give him a portion with the great....for he bore the sin of many and MADE INTERCESSION for the TRANSGRESSORS. "(but Jesus did in Luke on the cross).

So we have the servant=Jewish people. In the past the Jews have been persecuted and attacked: by the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Tsars, German Nazis, Soviet Communists and now by the Islamic terrorists. Never have they as a people directed prayers to God in favor of their persecutors. Never as a people have they " made intercession for the transgressors ".

No doubt there are some groups of religious Jews who ask for God to make the enemies of the Jews change and see the light but they are a small group, not enough to actually say the constitute " the people. " On the contrary the prayers have been for justice for the Jewish people, for punishment of the persecutors. In fact during the time of the Nazis, Communists and now the Islamic terrorists, the majority of Jews have been non-religious, and when they do petition God it certainly was not as intercession for their persecutors.


MORE TO COME:

There is more which will address ideas given by Osama.But this is the essence.Again,if Isaiah 53 is about the Jewish people then it makes God a deceiver.

minoria said...

CORRECTION:Sorry,in the part "How they Divide Isaiah 53" I said "from Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12-15".It's from Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 52:15.Again,sorry.

FOR LATER

ALI ATAIE in his debate with MICHAEL LICONA ("Jesus:Resurrected or Rescued?")said Isaiah 53 was about JEREMIAH.You find that also in the Talmud.

It's based on connecting Isaiah 53:7 with Jeremiah 11:18-20.But that connection goes against the Muslim claim Isaiah is not talking about the death of "my servant"(Isaiah 52:13).

THE SERVANT IN ISAIAH 53 HAVING PHYSICAL DESCENDANTS(Isaiah 53:10)

The word ZARA(seed) is used.The Talmud in one interpretation says it's Jeremiah.But that makes zara a spiritual descendant.

The Lubavitchers said Isaiah 53 referred to MENAHEM SCHNEERSON (1902-1994),their leader.But that makes zara mean a spiritual descendant also.His wife was sterile,they had no children.There is more but this is the main idea.

Sepher Shalom said...

Zakaria said: "One of which is that based on historical evidence you can claim that Jesus did not exist."

Has something gone wrong with my eyes, or did a Muslim just say that Osama should argue that The Messiah did not exist?? O_o

Minoria,

Excellent materials!!

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Zakaria,

Thank you for your kind words about me. That means a lot.

Quite frankly I had it with Osama Abdullah, his arrogance, his attitude and his ego. He makes up lies about me having B.O. which is completely false as I remember wearing AXE Body Spray before coming to his debate.

This all started because I said he did very badly in his debate. He used very silly arguments for Islam. He used completely irrevelant arguements from the O.T. Everyone even Semper agrees with me on this.

So I am offering this to him. I am putting together a team of Islamic apologists. Either work with me, Farhan Qureshi and Bassam Zawadi (for now let's leave out Nadir Ahmed since Bassam and Farhan also want nothing to do with him) for the cause and defense of Islam or keep being an embarrsement for Islam. This is it. If he doesn't want to work with us, then fine his loss.

If he wants to work with us he can email me at ehteshaam7@yahoo.com. If not then I hope and Pray Allah guides him.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"Actually Osama, if you accomplished that [and as of yet you aren't even close], if you accomplished that you will have proven Rabbinic Judaism to be true. Keep up your wild goose chase Osama, and if by some miracle you succeed you will have given Christians a good reason to convert to Judaism :-)"

What is Judaism? It is a smaller version of Islam. The Great Ten Commandments, with the exception of not working on the Sabbath, are all beautiful Laws that are only small samples of what Islam has to offer from a way of life and True Worship of Allah Almighty or Yahweh (Al-Samad in the Quran or the Eternal).

Like I mentioned in my debate with David Wood in the "Is Muhammad a True Prophet" debate, both Moses and Muhammad have received the Laws of THIKR. The Old Testament also predicts the coming of a new Law/Covenant/Way. Christians claim that Jesus Christ is this Law. As a Muslim, I believe that it is the Glorious Quran.

So no, if I disprove Christianity by proving that the Old Testament clearly stated that the Messiah won't get crucified or be killed, and that Allah Almighty WILL SAVE HIM AND SEND THE ANGELS TO LIFT HIM FROM DEATH, then I have established Islam and not Christianity, since Judaism does believe in the coming of the new Law and a new Way. It's just a matter of determining whether it is Christianity or Islam, AND ISLAM IS FAR CLOSER TO ORIGINAL JUDAISM AND ALL OF ITS PROPHETS' TEACHINGS THAN THE TRINITY AND POLYTHEISTIC CHRISTIANITY. As a Jew, you should know this and agree with it.

Brother Zakaria, it's all water under the bridge akhi. I am sorry to you and to Gulam. Next time, insha'Allah (if Allah Almighty is Willing), I will do a better job in explaining my points more clearly.

Take care dear brother, and also to Sepher.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Zakaria said...

Dear Sepher

I simply meant that historical evidence can be used to support opposing viewpoints which makes historical arguments problematic in regards to proving that Jesus was cruxfied.

Salam aleikum Brothers Gulam and Osama

A piece of advice to you Brother Gulam if you enter the public domain and conduct debates you should not for the sake of islam take things personal (I refer to the body odour nonsense). The most frustrating thing to someone who tries to insult you is if to ignore him or turn the insult around by using humor. If someone says that you smell bad you can just say so what are planing to propose. Or soemthing along those lines. Don't show any signs of weakness.

Osama I wish you good luck and I hope that you give Gulam's proposal a shot. I bet you that the christian apologetics behind this site are busy improving their arguments and cooperating with individuals they don't like in private while we muslims bicker about nonsense.

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

I have made no lie against you. Everyone can read the thread above. It is you who acted as a ludicrous joker. And yes, you did stink.

As to working with you, no thanks, I don't need Nadir Ahmed likes from clowns to work with me.

No lies were made by me, and I therefore, take back my apology to you. You're no more than a clown.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama,

I wrote my comment at July 26, 2009 1:01 AM while You wrote your comment at July 26, 2009 1:41 PM. You apologized to me at July 26, 2009 4:46 AM.

Your apology is accepted and I take back all the bad things I said about you.

Zakaria said:

Salam aleikum Brothers Gulam and Osama

A piece of advice to you Brother Gulam if you enter the public domain and conduct debates you should not for the sake of islam take things personal (I refer to the body odour nonsense). The most frustrating thing to someone who tries to insult you is if to ignore him or turn the insult around by using humor. If someone says that you smell bad you can just say so what are planing to propose. Or soemthing along those lines. Don't show any signs of weakness.

My Response:

Walakum ASalam Brother Zakaria,

May Allah's peace and blessings be upon you.

Yes to be fair I called Osama A Dumb Fat Blob. That was a personal insult and I apologize for it. Moreover what he says about me is not true, he's lying... he wanted some "revenge" on me for ripping on him so he made it up. He has a bad habit of making up some stuff up about people, spreading them and later believing them. So Zakaria, NO what Osama said about me is NOT true. He made it up. He has a pathological lying disorder. He also says I am associated with Nadir Ahmed-- which is NOT true anymore (now I am associated with Bassam Zawadi and Farhan Qurehsi).

Zakaria, I already apologized to Osama Abdullah for making fun of him, his website and calling him a Fat Blob--If he REALLY loves Allah, Islam and Prophet Muhammad (p) he would accept my apology and we can all move on. We'll see his response. But now Zakaria I didn't start this-- Osama did.

Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com (my site)

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Zakaria said:

Gulam

While you're at it why not take back what you've said about nadir and other muslims. Or does the clown osama deserve special treatment. I don't see why nabeel and wood must write on their blog that you disassociate yourself from nadir. Not only that, you will also pay them alot of money.
Either you like to do some binge drinking now and again and accordingly wrote this last comment under the influence of alcohol. Or somebody has threatened you. Be a man! This is not a Stephen King novel you don't have to be afraid of the Clown(osama).

My Response: Zakaria my brother in Islam, I have nothing against Nadir Ahmed (although Farhan, Bassam and Osama have a lot of problems/beef with him). It's just Nadir has given up on debating/Islamic apologetics and has moved on to other things. He's no longer interested in this stuff. I haven't given up-- and In fact I am working with Bassam and Farhan on the future of Islamic apologetics.

As for Osama I already apologized to him at least 6 TIMES. Its time he accepts it, apologizes to me for real and we all move on for the defense and spread of the one true religion-----ISLAM.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Zakaria said...

Dear Osama

The body odour issue seems to be quite important to you. It worries me a bit. Once and for all are you in the habit of measuring people up by their smell? If so that tells me more about you than it tells me about Gulam. I mean give the kid a break he maybe got worked up during the debate for some reason.

You carry on your shinanigans for public display on a christian website. You don't seem to have all your horses in the stable. Gulam stinks I stink everybody stinks occasionally is that something you mention in the comment section on a christian site.
Gulam and osama please focus on your apolgetics work instead of bickering about over who stinks.
Gulam your site seems to be very organised and scholarly. Keep up the good work. Osama your site is a bit disorganised but it contains invaluable gems. Improve your debating skills and how you present things on your site. You two don't have time visiting these kind of sites bickering about body smell and other personal issues. You can do that face to face instead of making a mockery of yourselves.

Unless osama writes something really funny in response that I feel I want to respond to this will inshallah be my last comment on this site.

Osama Abdallah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Osama Abdallah said...

"The body odour issue seems to be quite important to you. It worries me a bit. Once and for all are you in the habit of measuring people up by their smell? If so that tells me more about you than it tells me about Gulam. I mean give the kid a break he maybe got worked up during the debate for some reason."

Gulam started his nonsense attacking several people including myself. I only put him in his right place.

As to worrying you, I don't get you. Are you acting stupid, or are you being serious?
I only initially mentioned it once, but Gulam kept on his childish insults (calling me a fool and stupid for not accepting that Isaiah 53 is not talking about the a person), and he kept on denying it. I simply stated the Truth. I wasn't making up things on him. He's not the only person. Like I told him, I've written a lengthy article about this at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bad_smell.htm

Much of what is called "Indian food" and "Chinese food" where much of foul-smelling spices and raw garlics are used were ACTUALLY DIRECTLY FORBIDDEN BY THE PROPHET OF ISLAM IN THE AMPLE HADITHS THAT I'VE PROVIDED. It is also against the Noble Quran. If you wish to truly follow the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him, then I suggest you start with this problem. It is quite harmful and too harmful. And again, it is against both the Noble Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet. I never personalized this issue on anyone. Gulam was the first one, and I did it because he insulted me first in a very cheap way, by calling me the internet's quack. I simply put him in his place.

Now hopefully if you shut up, then this will be my last post regarding this clown and his freind Nadir Ahmed, whom by the way Gulam is an infidel (kafir) to him for believing in the swoon theory. This is the only reason why Nadir called Shabir Ally a kafir. I don't see any logic in not calling Gulam as such if Nadir wanted to have a straight face. But of course, knowing this double-faced clown, I know that he would be selective in calling people "infidel" (kafir).

And Gulam, as to Nadir quitting apologetics, not true. I was personally told that Nadir Ahmed was discontinued to be engaged because he is a total waste of time. If it were up to him, he would still be continuing his "debates" and his lala-world victories over his opponents whom every single one of them supposedly ran away from him, and continues to run away from him and is currently "ducking and dodging" him.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "What is Judaism? It is a smaller version of Islam."

Ha! I almost spit out my morning coffee when I read that! This would be like saying a bird is a smaller version of an airplane.

Osama said: "Like I mentioned in my debate with David Wood in the "Is Muhammad a True Prophet" debate, both Moses and Muhammad have received the Laws of THIKR. The Old Testament also predicts the coming of a new Law/Covenant/Way. Christians claim that Jesus Christ is this Law."

Sorry Osama, but "law" and "covenant" are not interchangeable synonyms. I suggest a Hebrew lexicon might be a good place to get straightened out. The next problem is that YHWH's Laws are eternal. Muhammad broke the Torah, and taught others to break Torah. This alone disqualifies him as a prophet. None of the prophets of YHWH taught against Torah. Yeshua Himself upheld the Torah and never once violated it.

Osama said:"ISLAM IS FAR CLOSER TO ORIGINAL JUDAISM AND ALL OF ITS PROPHETS' TEACHINGS THAN THE TRINITY AND POLYTHEISTIC CHRISTIANITY. As a Jew, you should know this and agree with it."

Ok Osama. I'm going to try to be gentle on this one, because I have no doubt that you have grown up hearing the false rhetoric that "Muslim belief about G-d is just like Jews". The problem is "original Judaism" isn't synonymous with Rabbinic Judaism [and I'm assuming you would agree on this point since you believe all the prophets were Muslim]. I have a quote I would like you to look at:

""Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."

While you are considering that quote, I would like to point how it really does seem to affirm the "Trinity". Notice the language; "threefold Divine manifestations", and "three modes which yet form one unity". You might have to wonder if this is Augustine, or Irenaeus? Maybe it's Thomas Aquinas? It does use some Hebrew words so maybe it's a Messianic Jew like Dr. Michael Brown? Nope. It's a Jewish Rabbi and sage writing centuries ago in the Zohar [Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134 in the Soncino Press edition)].

I wonder why this Jewish document absolutely contradicts Tawheed? So to answer your question about what I "know"; when I look at the Jewish sages, my Jewish Scriptures, my Jewish Zohar, I come to a few conclusions: 1) The Scriptures of the "New Testament" are 100% Jewish and the theology they teach comes straight out of Second Temple Judaism, 2) When I compare Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, it is Islam that is the one that doesn't fit, 3) Muhammad was a false prophet and complete stranger to my Jewish Messiah, that will reign forever from Zion.

Osama said: "Take care dear brother, and also to Sepher."

Thank you for the kind words. I hope you know I care for you deeply Osama. I would offer the sincere wishes of my heart in regards to your future, but I fear after seeing you ask others not to pray for you, it would only be a source of distaste for your eyes what I would type. Let me just say, that my Messiah has commanded me to love all people, and if at any point in our debating my sarcasm or rough comments have not conveyed that I care for you as a human, I apologize. May you [and I] find the strength to seek the truth, be given guidance from our Creator, and be gifted the courage to live what we find. Shalom Aleichem, Osama.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Osama Abdallah said...

"""Hear, O Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith; in the vision of the Holy Spirit, in the beholding of the hidden eye alone.…So it is with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by Adonai Eloheinu Adonai—three modes which yet form one unity."

While you are considering that quote, I would like to point how it really does seem to affirm the "Trinity". Notice the language; "threefold Divine manifestations", and "three modes which yet form one unity". You might have to wonder if this is Augustine, or Irenaeus? Maybe it's Thomas Aquinas? It does use some Hebrew words so maybe it's a Messianic Jew like Dr. Michael Brown? Nope. It's a Jewish Rabbi and sage writing centuries ago in the Zohar [Zohar II:43b (vol. 3, p. 134 in the Soncino Press edition)]."

The three that the Rabbi is speaking about are the three words referring to GOD Almighty; Adonai Eloheinu Adonai. But regardless, I COULD BRING YOU A 1000 RABBIS' QUOTES THAT SAY GOD ALMIGHTY is Absolute One and none other than One. Plus, there are ample verses from the Old and New Testaments even by Jesus himself that say that Yahweh Almighty is THE ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY.

Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/at.htm

The fact that you used a lone Rabbi's writings shows your desperation. If trinity was indeed not blasphemy and was valid, then the Bible should've clearly spelled it out. But you have nothing.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

FOR THE LAST TIME:

My apologizes to Osama Abdullah. I did call him a bunch of bad names. So sorry I called you a Fat Blob, A Fat Loser and a quack.

And to Brother Zakaria-- No ITS NOT TRUE. OSAMA MADE IT UP, HE LIED ABOUT ME. I remember wearing AXE before coming to the debate. The reason why he invented this story was to get some revenge against me when I said he did very bad in his debate. Maybe I had fastfood before or something-- I don't remember 100%.

Osama I suggest you take my apology and we all move on. We are both SUNNI MUSLIMS-- not infidels (although I am much better Muslim than you)

Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

minoria said...

Hey Sepher Shalom:

That was great and touching what you said to Osama and how you care for his destiny.In fact we all do,and for the other Muslims here.

Jesus would have said the same.I too have a tendency to be sarcastic.I saw the movie The Stoning of Soraya and it's a classic.It should win the Oscar for Best Movie.But it won't.It's as good in its way,or better,than Slumdog Millionaire.But it won't win the Oscar for Best Movie.

Already Muslims are saying it's Islamophobic,propaganda,hatemongering.Watch it,you'll like it in the sense it doesn't bore you,and you feel YOU are in Iran,YOU personally,seeing it all.

CHRISTIAN EXTREMISM?

I read people who are supposedly "well-researched",non-Muslims,Westerners,who say evangelicals "want the disappearence of the Jews".That is why we support Israel.

THEOLOGY

It's because of the events in Revelation.Word war,famine,etc.That evangelicals
are doing all they can to accelerate world war,Armageddon.Not true,it's Ahmadinejad and Al-Qaida and other Muslims.We try to preserve peace but not at any price.Jews are the Chosen People,one can't be in favor of letting Israel be overun by Hamas,Hizbullah or Ahmadinejad.If they had an atomic bomb they would use it against millions of Israelis,just like Hitler.

ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED

Paul said a prophecy that after a certain number of Gentiles become Christian the Jews will find salvation also.Does that sound like we want them to be exterminated?

ROM 11:25:

"...a part of Israel(the Jewish people) has become hardened,till the totality of Gentiles has entered,and then all Israel will be saved."

So,Paul who was Jewish,not only says his people are still chosen(Rom 11:1-4) but then in verse 25 prophesizes all his people will be saved.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama, that is not just some "lone Rabbi", that is the Zohar. Rabbinic Judaism holds the Zohar right in the same arena as the Talmud and Mishnah Torah.

Osama said: "I COULD BRING YOU A 1000 RABBIS' QUOTES THAT SAY GOD ALMIGHTY is Absolute One and none other than One. Plus, there are ample verses from the Old and New Testaments even by Jesus himself that say that Yahweh Almighty is THE ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY."

Myself, and all mainstream Christians as well, affirm that G-d is one, and there is one G-d. We just disagree with you over the nature of his oneness, and we reject Islamic Tawheed as a foreign concept. I don't expect I'm going to suddenly convince you to drop Tawheed, but come on man....at least try to recognize your bias and see past it so you can accurately represent other's beliefs.

And seriously, for you to just shrug off the Zohar as if it is nothing, when your argument appeals to Jewish theology and the Zohar is one of the primary texts of Judaism, just shows that you are not interested in engaging this topic in a genuine fashion. You need to realize that you have been misled about the nuances and complexity of Jewish theology. It's certainly not your fault. There are plenty of people that have a vested interest in misrepresenting these things to you.

Osama Abdallah said...

"FOR THE LAST TIME:

My apologizes to Osama Abdullah. I did call him a bunch of bad names. So sorry I called you a Fat Blob, A Fat Loser and a quack.

And to Brother Zakaria-- No ITS NOT TRUE. OSAMA MADE IT UP, HE LIED ABOUT ME. I remember wearing AXE before coming to the debate. The reason why he invented this story was to get some revenge against me when I said he did very bad in his debate. Maybe I had fastfood before or something-- I don't remember 100%."

Gulam, know one thing for certain and that is I am not like you and your friend who considers you an infidel, Nadir Ahmed. I don't take "revenges" from clowns. I only put you in your right place. ALLAH ALMIGHTY IS A WITNESS on my words that I have not fabricated a single lie about you. Yes stinky, you did stink LOL. Now I suggest you discontinue bringing this up because it further embarasses you. You also went on insulting others beside me. You are a dumb clown Gulam, and your apology is rejected. So now you can take me off of your list of team and definitely unlink my web site from yours for I will never link yours on my site.

As to the name callings that you gave me, LOL, they were cute. But unlike the ones I gave you which were true, yours were no more than desperate fabrications and cheap insults.

I find it ironic that you want to pay David and Nabeel BIG MONEY to create a special post for you saying that you don't associate yourself with Nadir Ahmed. But yet, you just mentioned few posts ago that you want him on your team? This is only one of many reasons why you are a true quack and a clown Gulam.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"Myself, and all mainstream Christians as well, affirm that G-d is one, and there is one G-d. We just disagree with you over the nature of his oneness, and we reject Islamic Tawheed as a foreign concept. I don't expect I'm going to suddenly convince you to drop Tawheed, but come on man....at least try to recognize your bias and see past it so you can accurately represent other's beliefs."

Again, neither did Zohar mention any trinity, nor is trinity defined in the Bible, nor does the word itself or any sister word to it exist in the Bible. So it is not Tawheed that is foreign, but rather it is the trinity that descended down by a parachute out of no where and is now the official faith of Christianity. Judaism never once had trinity in it, and neither did Mr. Zohar. All he did was he said that the three words all represent ONE TRUE GOD. No mention of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. He only said that through the Holy Spirit we receive truth from GOD Almighty, and I agree with this.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

ubiquitouserendipity said...

dear brothers and sisters in Christ ~ greetings in the most beautiful and precious name of Christ our Lord, and may peace and love abound in your lives.

just a quick note re: the trinity: in january '08 a "tom in texas" posted a comment on this blog, under the sam shamoun/nadir ahmed debate regarding the aseity (self-sufficiency) of G_d. his post is one of the most concise and cogent expositions re: the necessity of the trinity of G_d.

here are the opening paragraphs:

quote
Tom in Texas said...
There are very distinct differences between the god of Islam and the God of Christianity:

Islam has a view of Allah as a solitary creator-person, causing a theological problem for which Islam has no solution. The theological word, “aseity,” is used to express the characteristic of self-sufficiency. It comes from the Latin expression, “a se” (being unto itself). A-se-ity means that God was totally and completely self-sufficient before any of His creative acts, and is not in any way dependent upon His creation (Acts 17:25). An interesting corollary, from everything we know by analogy with God, is that a solitary person is always incomplete. After He made Adam, and before Adam sinned, God stated, “It is not good that man be alone” (Genesis 2:18). And, in that statement, was a fundamental observation about persons. The Bible knows no such thing as solitary personality—personality is corporate—demanding another person.

Before man was created, what did Allah do, talk to himself? Did he have soliloquies, forever and ever? Or, worse, did he have to create the universe in order to have other persons with whom to commune? Allah could not have fellowship with himself, not in a corporate, social sense. If God were a solitary being, then He would have to create in order to have an object with which to talk or have fellowship. A solitary monotheism, such as Islam, has to have a god who creates, or he is a lonely god.

Once you have to have a god creating something external to himself in order to exercise this principle, you've made your god dependent on the external creation. Your god is no longer self-contained, self-sufficient, and absolutely independent; he is a god who is dependent on the universe. Only the God of Christianity satisfies the qualification of aseity—that the True God must be totally self-sufficient and independent of His Creation from eternity past.
end quote

i would encourage any and all to read his beautiful post, found here: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/sam-shamoun-vs-nadir-ahmed-is-islam.html

Peace, in His love, joe

Zakaria said...

Dear Osama

If you don't know your subject please refrain from debating it. Zohar is the most important work on Kabbalah and not a person.

Sepher:
Kabbalah is a very complicated system of belief. To take a sentence out of a mystical work that functions on the symbolic level and interpreting it in a literal sence only proves your ignorance of the kabbalah. Did you use a Jewish exegetical method when interpreting that section?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama THE FAT LOSER:

Okay I tried to make peace with you. Now You really made me mad.
That's it, You Fat Blob.

Listen. Leave me alone, You FAT BLOB. Don't talk about me. Don't spread your lies about me. I smelled good that day-- your the one who was wearing women's perfume. Your a FAT LOSER, A FAT MORON, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY people want to discuss religion with you.

OSAMA your a quack, just see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VofmINhjB70

YEAH--- Your the internet's biggest quack. Sorry, but your stupidity is going to haunt you forever FATSO. If I were you I would quit Apologetics.

Nobody takes you seriously. Your a FAT LOSER, who wears Women's perfume.

As for de-linking your site-- good idea-- I don't want people getting a virus when seeing your sloppy and silly site.

Your nothing but a Loser Osama, you always were. Why do you think you never won a single debate?

OH BTW You can read how Jalal Abdulrub exposed Osama's stupidity and ignorance here, Zakaria and others:

http://www.islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=36

http://www.islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=37

Also I DON'T WANT TO WORK with you Fat Loser, Osama. I work with good Muslim apologists Like Bassam Zawadi and Farhan Qureshi. Not idiots like you. Also stop these lies about me, You Fat Infidel Blob. And yes I am a Better Muslim than you'll ever be!

Yeah-- Osama is a Quack. He always was, always will be.

My advice to people here is stop talking to him. All he wants his praise and attention for his silly claims about the O.T. So Semper, and everyone else-- don't give it to him. Just ignore Osama Abdullah-- maybe he'll vanish into fat air.

Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Zakaria said...

dear ubi..

(hope you don't mind me shortening your alias)

Congrats! You and your bible thumper friends have just solved the trinity mysterium and refuted islamic tawhid.
The Tom character you refer to must be the greatest philospher since Plato. Let me quote him:

'A solitary monotheism, such as Islam, has to have a god who creates, or he is a lonely god.'

Well that would mean that the christian g-d is selfsufficent because he has someone to talk to.

Allah one the other hand is selfsufficient with out any assistance from other personas.
Tom equates solitariness with selfinsufficiency. Well that would in some cases make sense if we were talking about human beings, the problem however with this logic is that G-d is above being associated with human weaknesses such as feeling lonely.

What Tom does is that he redefines selfsufficiency by bringing in the concept of trinity?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I get along with every Muslim Apologists like my friends Farhan Qureshi, Nadir Ahemd and Bassam Zawadi-- expect this fat loser, Osama Abdullah. I even get along with David, Nabeel and Mary Jo. Fine, I can't get along with everyone.

But since this pathological liar Osama Abdullah is spreading lies about me, I am going to pass this interesting article I found on Answering-Islam.org (I don't know if it is true or not-- but since Osama is spreading bad things about me I am going to do the same):

http://www.answer-islam.org/OsamaChristians.html
ALSO:

FreeThoughtMecca - now defunct - played a hoax on Osama, who considers himself quite the brilliant muslim apologist. He's so desperate to believe in islam, he'll swallow anything, including a ridiculous prank like the one presented to him by this playful group. Has Osama learned anything since this? Not if he is to be judged by his lunacy in PalTalk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VofmINhjB70

AFTER WATCHING THIS I LOST ALL RESPECT FOR THE FAT LOSER OSAMA "THE QUACK" ABDULLAH.

Sorry Osama, sorry it had to come to this, I apologized to you several times, I offered you to work with me, Bassam and Farhan but You were stubborn-- now see where it got you. I didn't want to do this-- I didn't want to fight you-- but you asked for it.

Yours in Islam,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Zakaria said: "Sepher:
Kabbalah is a very complicated system of belief. To take a sentence out of a mystical work that functions on the symbolic level and interpreting it in a literal sence only proves your ignorance of the kabbalah. Did you use a Jewish exegetical method when interpreting that section?"


Yes it is very complicated; however, large portions of the "New Testament" are Kabbalistic [all of Revelation, and key points from Paul, James, and Hebrews, and elemenst found within the Gospel narrations]. The Brit Chadasha/New Testament is in many ways a "mystical work that functions on a symbolic level". The point is, the complex-unity of YHWH is Kabbalistic, and so no, I'm not taking it "out of context". The Zohar absolutely does not line up with Islamic Tawheed. That is my whole point. Muslims need to stop painting the concept of G-d in Judaism with such a narrow brush, and trying to turn it into Tawheed.

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Again, neither did Zohar mention any trinity, nor is trinity defined in the Bible, nor does the word itself or any sister word to it exist in the Bible."

I never said it did. However, I am defending the position of complex-unity here. All that is necessary to refute your appeal to authority about Jewish theology supporting Islam's position is to demonstrate that authentic and respected Jewish sources [like the Zohar] do not comport with Tawheed; and I have done that.

Osama said: "Judaism never once had trinity in it, and neither did Mr. Zohar. All he did was he said that the three words all represent ONE TRUE GOD."

As Zakaria pointed out Zohar is not a person, rather a collection of writings. I want to say this in a gentle way Osama; I think this is evidence you are not qualified to offer a reasonable response on this subject without further study. There is no shame in that. I can think of many Islamic subjects were I feel unqualified to comment without further research.

It seems you have missed the point of the portion of the quote that mentions "Adonai Eloheinu Adonai". The author is making an exposition into the reason for the triple stating of words that all mean essentially 'G-d'. Notice, he says the 3 names are 1? Notice he explicity states that there is diversity within the G-dhead that is united? This is complex-unity. The point is, this very Jewish source that is accepted by the Rabbis, does not teach a concept of G-d that matches Islamic Tawheed.

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

Below are THREE MAIN REASONS from many of why you are a true loser, liar, ludicrous and a quack.

You are no more than a quack and a stinky with a foul body odor. These links are almost 7 years old LOL, and they contain lies about me. And the site is now DEFUNCT. It no longer exists.


If one wants to speak about quacks, it is you who is too stupid who he can't even get his train of thoughts right. You OFFERED DAVID AND NABEEL LOTS OF MONEY to create a special post for you stating that you don't associate with Nadir Ahmed, and then you contradicted it by saying that you want to make a team with him.

Man, if anyone is a true quack and a loser it is definitely you. And I find it quite ironic that you resort to YEARS OLD LINK THAT IS NOW DEAD to supposedly prove that I am a quack? That infidel that you're using pulled his link down because he doesn't believe I am a quack. But dude, believe me, the last thing I EVER WANT TO WORRY ABOUT IS A REPUTATION FROM that loser and you.

So Gulam, without a doubt, the only quack and loser here is you and not me for the following reasons:

1- You want to pay Nabeel and David lots of money to say that you don't associate with that loser who even CONSIDERS YOU AND INFIDEL, Nadir Ahmed, while you stated few posts ago that you want to team up with him.

2- You rely on a 7-year old DEAD LINK to prove that I am a quack?

3- Now Bassam Zawadi is your friend? YOU JUST SAID POSTS AGO ON THIS THREAD THAT HE WAS ARROGANT AND STUPID! Now he is your friend? What are you a snake or a hypocrite?


LOL, man talk about desperation! If anything, you have shown that I am far from being one, because you have nothing recent about me. And trust me dude, that dead link also contained lies and desperation about me as well.

So get lost to Hell loser. Without a doubt, it is you who is the true quack and loser.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

"Also I DON'T WANT TO WORK with you Fat Loser, Osama. I work with good Muslim apologists Like Bassam Zawadi and Farhan Qureshi. Not idiots like you. Also stop these lies about me, YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB. And yes I am a Better Muslim than you'll ever be!"
YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB
YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB
YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB
YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB
YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB
YOU FAT INFIDEL BLOB

All,

I am glad that I was able to expose this foul-smelling loser without any disputes or doubts. Notice how he called me an INFIDEL. This is the disease that I've been talking about. It is not about one's belief in Islam and Allah Almighty that makes him an Muslim.
It is rather displeasing a loser like Gulam that would make him an infidel.

So now Gulam, let me put this in the right perspective:

1- Above, before I made you mad, I was your "brother in Islam".

2- Now that I unmasked you, I am now an infidel?


LOL, you lice-infested toilet-smelling cury-lover, based on what evidence am I now an infidel? I mean I could understand your other insults such as "stupid", "fool", "quack" and so on..., but infidel??

So now I suppose if you upset Nadir Ahmed, then you'll end up like Shabir Ally to him; an infidel?

Man, I am glad that I was able to expose you and expose your foul smell on this board. You are truly a rotten and stinky loser who is as careless as many of the rotten ones out there on the net who call themselves "good Muslims".

And let me now prove that you have now become an infidel for calling me an infidel:

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 71:
Narrated Abu Dhar:
That he heard the Prophet saying, "If somebody accuses another of Fusuq (by calling him 'Fasiq' i.e. a wicked person) or accuses him of Kufr, such an accusation will revert to him (i.e. the accuser) if his companion (the accused) is innocent." ( Sahih Bukhari)"


Gulam has called me an infidel. If am not an infidel, then according to Islam, he has become one.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama,

What did I say you Pathological lying Freak, You Fat Blob? I said leave me alone. Don't talk about me. Don't talk bad about my friend Nadir Ahmed. Leave him out of this, I'll leave your little "Boy Toy" Sami Zattari out of this as well. This is just between you and me.

Osama see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VofmINhjB70&feature=channel_page

Then watch it again and again and again till you get why people don't take you seriously.

Osama, I am sorry to say this but now I KNOW your mentally sick. I already tried to apologize. I tried to make peace. I love you for the sake of Allah-- I love you because your a Muslim-- but really leave me alone. When you come to your senses-- when you come to realize that Islam is about unity in the Ummah and not divisions-- when you study the truth and beauty of Islam and the falsehoods of Christianity--- then go back to apologetics. Take a year off, study then come back to Islamic apologetics.

But you do it by yourself. Want to keep making a fool of yourself-- be my guest. I tried to help you-- but now I am sad to say I give up on you and now I am going to focues on what really matters-- my career in business and my career as an Islamic Preacher.

It's okay I can't get along with everyone. Its unrealistic. Even Prophet Muhammad (p) couldn't convince everyone (his uncle Talib for example).

So as the Holy Quran says Onto you your way and unto me my way.

As for the David and Nabeel posting that blog comment-- it was a joke. Of course you wouldn't understand that.

So good riddance Osama. May Allah (SWT) guide and protect you along the way. Ameen.

Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

Like I've proven with ample proofs above, you are the true quack. That link that you just gave has the following problems:

1- It hardly has any visitor to it. It's been up for more than 6 months, and it hardly has 90 visitors to it.

2- It's material is based on an article that an infidel wrote 7 YEARS AGO! And his article is now DEFUNCT (no longer exists).


So you have got to be a true quack to rely on something that happened 7 years ago. Plus, there are lies that were made up in that article.

As to me being a Muslim and you LOVING ME FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH, you just called me an infidel A POST AGO! Now I am a Muslim? You said that you wanted to become an Islamic preacher. I hardly think you would qualified for this responsibility Gulam. HEAR THIS GULAM AND HEAR IT CAREFULLY:

(AGAIN, HEAR THIS GULAM AND HEAR IT CAREFULLY!)

Many careless people (notice I didn't insult you) like you in Iraq and Pakistan today throw THIS CHEAP and CHEAPENED TITLE, INFIDEL, on Muslims, irresponsibly, and it had resulted and is still resulting in having bastards from their followers suicide the other side's Mosques and shopping centers. When you take on a role of leadership, your words have to be weighed in gold! If you are a clown in your words and careless enough to call someone an infidel just because he SNEEZED ON YOUR FACE as Nadir would easily call you an infidel just as he did to Shabir Ally for not liking him, then you could and would cause for a brainless morons to take this to another level and to actually do harm!

I had a clown on the internet, and I swear by Allah Almighty I am not lying, say that since Osama Abdallah is a Kafir, then what should we do with his wife, and what is the status of his wife? Trust me, if I couldn't kill you by hand, my 380 ml would do it for me if you do anything to my wife, but the point is that it has even come to this low level, because some bastard out there decided to call me an infidel, EXACTLY HAS YOU HAVE DONE A POST AGO ON THIS THREAD. So if you do not believe that the person who sneezed on your face is an infidel, then don't call you such. Plus, it would make you the infidel according to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, as I have just shown you.

So my advise to you Gulam the so-called responsible Muslim is to be careful with your words. I hope that this thread had been a good lesson for you. Trust me, it is MUSIC TO MY EARS when I hear people like you (again I did not insult you here) call me an infidel. It only further proves that I am definitely on the right track, because the last thing I want is a blessing from the cursed ones.

Have a good day, and I hope that these words mean anything to you.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Zakaria said...

Salam aleikum,
Osama and Ghulam

Please stop this nonsense! Why carry out this namecalling nonsense on public display. My advice to you guys is for the sake of islam to just apologize to each other without any additional comments that might upset the other party.
Show some discipline! Stick to discussing the specific topic at hand. Don't digress into personal conflicts. How old are you guys anyway?

Osama Abdallah said...

"Salam aleikum,
Osama and Ghulam

Please stop this nonsense! Why carry out this namecalling nonsense on public display. My advice to you guys is for the sake of islam to just apologize to each other without any additional comments that might upset the other party.
Show some discipline! Stick to discussing the specific topic at hand. Don't digress into personal conflicts. How old are you guys anyway?"

I am 12 :-), and I already made a youtube video revenging from Gulam: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrFIz0BB2mw&feature=fvw.

Zakaria said...

Salam aleikum

I give up!

'I am 12 :-), and I already made a youtube video revenging from Gulam:'

Osama I must concede that you have a sense of humour :)

If you ever happen to visit Sweden contact me. I don't think I'll visit the States in the near future. I don't particularly fancy getting subjected to a strip-search.

Zakaria said...

Osama:

By the way just happened to stumble upon an article claiming that jewish scientists found evidence that Adam (aleihi ua salam) is 90 feet tall. Please post it on your webpage.

:)LOL LOL!

water under the bridge eh?

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Zakaria said... dear ubi..

(hope you don't mind me shortening your alias)

ubiquitouserendipity says: nope, don’t mind at all. call me anything but a “mohammedan.” ;+}

Zakaria said... Congrats! You and your bible thumper friends have just solved the trinity mysterium and refuted islamic tawhid.

ubiquitouserendipity says: yes, true,,, at least i think so. but your logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule certainly doesn’t enhance your (lack of) argument.

Zakaria said... The Tom character you refer to must be the greatest philospher since Plato. Let me quote him:

ubiquitouserendipity says: (another appeal to ridicule) maybe not the greatest philosopher,,, but he has certainly identified some of the possible reasoning behind allah’s anger, hatred and insecurity. Not to mention that this allah being has to have a partner (mohammed) to establish belief in his self. Hashem Adonai does not require the recognition of any prophet to be. As tom pointed out: “aseity,” is used to express the characteristic of self-sufficiency. It comes from the Latin expression, “a se” (being unto itself). A-se-ity means that God was totally and completely self-sufficient before any of His creative acts, and is not in any way dependent upon His creation. You see, when I pray I say, “Father.” I don’t have to demean G_d by partnering Him with a illiterate pedophile savage who devised a god that validated and affirmed his hedonism, barbarity, and perversity.

Zakaria said... “solitary monotheism, such as Islam, has to have a god who creates, or he is a lonely god.'

Well that would mean that the christian g-d is selfsufficent because he has someone to talk to.

ubiquitouserendipity says: 1) exactly. 2) not quite that simplistic. G_d, Who alone is G_d, being triune, communes within the G_dhead, expressing the traits of love, mercy, justice, compassion, etc., within His Self. G_d would not be love if G_d could not express that love. allah had no one to love until he supposedly created man. And the most important apect of that is that allah hates and detests most of creation,,, because allah only “loves” those who “love” him. most of the people in history have either not known of this allah being, or rejected allah as nothing more than a pagan fairy tale

Tell me, did allah talk with himself, love himself, care for himself, and express the multi-facets of his “personality” in a vacuum?

continued~

ubiquitouserendipity said...

~continued

Zakaria said... Allah one the other hand is selfsufficient with out any assistance from other personas.

ubiquitouserendipity says: pure conjecture,,, plus, it is obvious from your belief set that allah is incomplete without his “prophet.”

Zakaria said... Tom equates solitariness with selfinsufficiency. Well that would in some cases make sense if we were talking about human beings, the problem however with this logic is that G-d is above being associated with human weaknesses such as feeling lonely.

ubiquitouserendipity says: not necessarily does tom equate solitariness with self-insufficiency. now, since we are made in the image and likeness of the G_d of creation, He must necessarily be a “feeling” being. if G_d is love, then G_d should necessarily know what loneliness is. Whether G_d (the One True and Living G_d, Hashem Adonai) experiences loneliness would be a separate issue.

Zakaria said...
What Tom does is that he redefines selfsufficiency by bringing in the concept of trinity?

ubiquitouserendipity says: no, tom identifies what is self-sufficiency as a quality lacking in allah, which along with allah‘s transcendence, places allah outside of the scope of human experience. He further shows that the G_d of the bible is both self-sufficient within the nature of the trinity, and His personal experience through His incarnation brings G_d‘s personal empathy (love) to the fore.

allah’s attribute of hatred for his creation are a testimony that allah is not G_d. G_d is love, and allah is bound by his hatred for most of his creation. if allah’s attributes are eternal, then he is one pissed off, miserable critter, to the nth degree.

Peace, in His love, joe

Osama Abdallah said...

"Osama:

By the way just happened to stumble upon an article claiming that jewish scientists found evidence that Adam (aleihi ua salam) is 90 feet tall. Please post it on your webpage.

:)LOL LOL!

water under the bridge eh?"

ZAKARIA the bankrupt, believe me, the more you talk, the more I am convinced that you are NADIR AHMED. But anyway, regardless, I posted a film-clip of scientists from NASA AND HARVARD UNIVERSITY stating that the smaller the planet, the lesser its gravity and the taller the creatures will be on it. And scientists have proven that earth used to be 10% its size now and kept growing and growing. So yes, Adam was 90 or so feet tall. I wouldn't be surprised if this is proven to be true. Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/adam_90_feet_tall.htm. THIS IS WHY BY THE WAY EARTH HAD GIGANTIC DINASOURS ON IT. The gravity was far lesser than what it is now. And man most probably existed far before dinasours existed, 100s of millions of years ago.

I don't know if this is a cheap shot from you or just a joke, but what exactly are you trying to prove here? That I am STUPID for defending your Religion and Prophet? That I am a quack for spending TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TIRELESS HOURS over a period of 10 years working tirelessly days and nights to prove and promote Islam? Where were you during those days? Was your mommy changing your diapers, or were you watching Tom and Jerry cartoons?

I just don't get those Muslims who hold previous very bad mistakes of mine, which by the way there are only two recorded ones of them (Adam 90 feet tall and 360 joints) that are 7-years old, and keep flashing them in my face. And the Adam being 90 feet tall hoax-article was forwarded to me by a Muslim brother whom I took for granted. So my mistake was that I didn't check after him. While you were in your diapers in the apologetics world, I was refuting the infidels. Even Jalal Abualrub today gives me this credit, which I greatly appreciate of him: http://islamlife.com/religion2/component/content/article/56-news/659-good-news-for-muslims-good-news-for-hostile-non-muslims.

I could understand non-Muslims using previous errors on me, which by the way, they DO NOT ANY MORE. But I really don't understand quacks like you doing it. After all, while you were in the back seat, I was busy writing articles, reading and researching for YOUR RELIGION AND YOUR PROPHET. And I started from teh absolute bottom in knowledge and built my way up. So what is so funny about two lousy errors from among the thousands of good articles on my site?

By the way, the fact that you only have a 7-YEAR OLD MISTAKE actually proves that you are RIDICULOUS AND BANKRUPT, because if you truly weren't a quack, then you would produce something that is current and recent, not a desperate 7-year old dead error that had been turned around and corrected into an awsome Scientific Miracle for Islam at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/adam_90_feet_tall.htm.

With all honesty, if one shouldn't call you a true quack, then what should he call you?

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

By the way Gulam and Zakaria, I am seriously considering adding this entire thread's posts into the dumpster section at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/dumpster_section.htm to show my readers just what type of clowns I am forced to deal with.

Gulam, if you remain silent, then most likely I won't add it. But if you explode your BS once again, then prepare to face the public. It is time to put your balls where you mouth is. May be it's time to put you in your right places and show the Muslims what type of true losers and quacks you both are for attacking a Muslim who sincerly works hard to defend YOUR RELIGION, YOUR GOD ALMIGHTY, AND YOUR PROPHET.

So either you both shut up, or suffer the consequences. Gulam, I'll let everyone know that you called me a KAFIR (INFIDEL). This by itself will shred your false reputation into pieces.

And Gulam, Nadir Ahmed (Zakaria) is a loser who has nothing to lose. You on the other hand will have your web site right next to your name.

So, you both either shut up or be prepared to face the public and let us all see who will get humiliated in the Muslims' world on the net. You talk about quackery and quacks, believe me two losers, I WILL MAKE YOU THE INTERNET'S BIGGEST CLOWNS AND QUACKS, insha'Allah.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama:

I am going to say this one last time. Leave me alone. Leave Nadir Ahmed alone.

Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

By the way Gulam,

That link that you gave up, http://www.answer-islam.org/OsamaChristians.html, is filled with lies that that desperate coward, Quennel Gale, fabricated on me. I actually had email exchanges with him in the past and he responded. But when I emailed him several times and copied Sam Shamoun (Ben Malik), Jochen Katz, Denis Giron, Silas and others, AND CHALLENGED HIM to swear on his Bible that he did not fabricate those lies on me, he refused to answer.

Ben Malik is here, ask him! I have also exposed this liar, Quennel Gale, at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac8.htm#second_lie.

So to put all of this in the right perspective, all you have on me is a 7-year old error that I fixed and a lie that was fabricated on me by a lying coward.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

Just happened to check your site. LOL, I love what you wrote about me. I'll give you till tomorrow to remove your nonesense. If you don't, then welcome to the dumpster section: href="http://www.answering-christianity.com/dumpster_section.htm.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

All,

Nadir Ahmed's site has viruses in it: href="http://www.answering-christianity.com/nadir_ahmeds_site_has_viruses.jpg

I just happened to check it out today. I captured the image from my web browser to leave no doubt.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Really Osama I love you for the sake of Allah-- but I don't want to fight you. For the Last time, Leave me alone. Don't talk about me. Don't write about me. Please for the love of Allah-- just leave me be.

When are you going to realize we can't keep doing this? The critics and disbelievers of Islam keep winning because of people like you, Osama Abdullah.

How many times do I have to say it? I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT YOU. I DON'T WANT TO WRITE BAD THINGS ABOUT YOU.

Wake up and realize what is happening. This whole fight was both of our faults-- and I was willing to do the right thing and apologize--- yet you rejected it and still wanted to fight me.

Its like I am back in my early years of College. Some nasty men and women in my college the Allah Forsaken Eastern Michigan University-- wanted to fight me over something very silly-- but I just walked away. I remembered the words of Prophet Muhammad (p):

Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger."

I also remembered the words of Allah in the Quran 23:96 and 41:34.

Osama, When are you going to get it? I am a Muslim who LOVES Allah, Islam, Prophet Muhammad (p) and will do anything in my power to defend and spread Islam. Instead of teaming up with me, your fighting me for the pleasure of the disbelievers. Pathetic.

But if you write your non sense about me on your site, I will expose your immaturity/polemics on my site. Be careful.

Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Zakaria said...

Osama:

There is a principle in islamic dawah according to which the best dawah is by being a good example. Another principle is that you should avoid mojadala, namely oral conflict. A third principle is that you should be knowledgable about islam and the different topics you debate.

1) You fail living up to the first principle by the way you treat people who don't agree with you by insulting them. You insulted Gulam although he repeatedly apologized to you. You called me an infidel. You constantly lash out in diatribes against people.

2) You fail living up to the second principle by engaging in mojadala with infidels who insult Allah and his prophet. This happened to me through the so-called christian ubiquitouserendipity who talks about a loving G-d while in the same sentence insulting Allah and our prophet. The hate these evangilists show towards muslims is symptomatic of their corrupted belief. This kind of satanic individual should be avoided which I henceforth will by not exchanging any comments with him.

3 You fail living up to the 3rd principle by talking about things you have no clue about. For instance you discussed the Zohar and at the same time thinking it is a person.

I would think it would be an honour to be put in your dumpster section. Your childish threat only proves my point.
What does the link on youtube you cited have to do with Gulam?
Grow up!

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Oh by the way sorry for calling you an infidel, Osama Abdullah. Your a Muslim, I am Muslim----- end of story.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Okay Osama if I remove those things about you you'll remove your things about me? Tomorrow you said?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Oh Osama

You may want to check this out:

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

Don't play with me. Go to youtube and clean your toilet dump that you generated from your brain. You cleaned your site and turned around and posted more garbage on youtube.

This is your last warning Gulam!
Once you clean your garbage on youtube, then I'll remove my posts on you. Otherwise, you'll join your friend Nadir Ahmed in the dumpster section which I updated for him today: http://www.answering-christianity.com/dumpster_section.htm. Now you're sorry for all the things you said about me? Yet, you said countless garbage about me just an hour ago on youtube. You are a snake and a double-faced coward. You're not even man enough to even stand up to your words for one full day! You have to lick them back after you vomit them.

YOU ARE INDEED AN AMAZING PERSON!

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Okay my posts are gone. Now leave me alone, Osama.

Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

ubiquitouserendipity said...

In his response to his pious brother and the greatest Mohammedan apologist in the world (that is a joke of mammoth proportions), osama abdullah, Zakaria said...

2) You fail living up to the second principle by engaging in mojadala with infidels who insult Allah and his prophet. This happened to me through the so-called christian ubiquitouserendipity who talks about a loving G-d while in the same sentence insulting Allah and our prophet. The hate these evangilists show towards muslims is symptomatic of their corrupted belief. This kind of satanic individual should be avoided which I henceforth will by not exchanging any comments with him.

ubiquitouserendipity says: this “so-called Christian” notes that you are unable to address either tom’s points in the original post which I referenced, or my points addressed to you, specifically:

a) Not to mention that this allah being has to have a partner (mohammed) to establish belief in his self. Hashem Adonai does not require the recognition of any prophet to be.
You see, when I pray I say, “Father.” I don’t have to demean G_d by partnering Him with a illiterate pedophile savage who devised a god that validated and affirmed his hedonism, barbarity, and perversity.

b) G_d, Who alone is G_d, being triune, communes within the G_dhead, expressing the traits of love, mercy, justice, compassion, etc., within His Self. G_d would not be love if G_d could not express that love. allah had no one to love until he supposedly created man. And the most important apect of that is that allah hates and detests most of creation,,, because allah only “loves” those who “love” him. most of the people in history have either not known of this allah being, or rejected allah as nothing more than a pagan fairy tale

c) Tell me, did allah talk with himself, love himself, care for himself, and express the multi-facets of his “personality” in a vacuum?

d) since we are made in the image and likeness of the G_d of creation, He must necessarily be a “feeling” being. if G_d is love, then G_d should necessarily know what loneliness is.

e) what is self-sufficiency as a quality lacking in allah, and along with allah‘s transcendence, places allah outside of the scope of human experience. He further shows that the G_d of the bible is both self-sufficient within the nature of the trinity, and His personal experience through His incarnation brings G_d‘s personal empathy (love) to the fore.

what i notice zakaria, is that you are the typical mohammedan “victim.” poor baby, someone tells you the truth about your so-called prophet, and you fold up your brain and take a hike. Now you don’t need to agree with my assessment of your “prophet,” but an inability to deal with the reality of your histories which reveal mohammed to be the slime that we know he was, is your problem, not mine.

You guys come here and say all manner of garbage about G_d, likening him to a cosmic bell-boy catering to mohammed’s perversity, demeaning the Lord Jesus Christ by calling him one of your prophets, and pretending that some pagan arabian rock-god is the King of Glory.

allah is not the G_d. mohammed was just a barbaric savage, a pedophile, a whore-monger, a slave-master, and an all-around puke.

Now get your panties in a bunch and run home to mommy zakaria.

by the way, I don’t hate you zakaria. I don’t know you. I hate your phony god who leads billions to an eternity of damnation,,, and I despise your prophet for what he was: a pedophile (along with a few other descriptors which would take a dsm IV-R to detail).

Peace, in His love, joe

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ehteshaam Gulam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ehteshaam Gulam said...

The Quran is right-- the Bible is corrupt and false (See Quran 4:157, 2:75,79, etc etc)

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

ubiquitouserendipity,

I am NOT going to sink to your level. I Deleted my above statements.

Thus from now on I quit this blog.

Osama, may Allah guide and protect you-- I am out of here.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Osama Abdallah said...

ubiquitouserendipity,

You are obviously full of hate and are ready to blow up. It is nothing that concerns me personally. You could burn and rot in Hell for infinity for all I care. Islam was proven to be the Divine Truth. The Bible was proven to be corrupt, filled with man's corruptions and is mostly false. Jesus Christ himself mentioned endlessly that he was not GOD Almighty nor part of GOD Almighty, and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is far and is innocent from all of the things you said about him.

The bottom line is this: You have nothing, and you believe in nothing. This is what I tried to demonstrate to Nabeel during my debate with him. Everything you stand for is made of falsehood, man-made conclusions, mistrationslations, mis-interpretations, conjectures, false and fabricated history, and false and fabricated evolutions of Jesus' character and fabrications about him throughout the Church's history. We on the other hand, have the Divine Truth of Allah Almighty, all Praise and Glory are due to Him and only Him Alone.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

Osama Abdallah said...

Gulam,

Please remove your comments about my site at: http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/Links_.html

Osama Abdallah

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama,

Don't respond to this nutjob ubiquitouserendipity. Let him go to hell. I can insult his religion, the age of the Vigin Mary etc, etc but I am not going to. I am not going to let him get to me. I am not going to sink down to his level.

People like that are best left alone.

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
ubiquitouserendipity,

I am NOT going to sink to your level. I Deleted my above statements.

Thus from now on I quit this blog.

Osama, may Allah guide and protect you-- I am out of here.

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam

ubiquitouserendipity says: if the truth hurts, you might want to listen and learn here,,, these folks can help you come to a knowledge of the Truth. Obviously, you have the wrong truth. ehteshaam, i truly feel for you man. you are one confused young man. i think when you are alone with your thoughts you know that your “religion” is pure nuttiness,,, but you are stuck between a rock (Jesus) and a hard place (social and cultural inculcation into a fear/hate based fascistic ideology). All I can say is that the Truth will set you free,,, and Jesus is that Truth,,, HE is the Truth . Christ has indeed come that you might be free. Cry out to Him for your eternal soul ehteshaam. His peace will relieve the anxiety, fear, and confusion of trying to live in a state of constant cognitive dissonance.

Osama Abdallah said...
ubiquitouserendipity,

You are obviously full of hate and are ready to blow up. It is nothing that concerns me personally. You could burn and rot in Hell for infinity for all I care. Islam was proven to be the Divine Truth. The Bible was proven to be corrupt, filled with man's corruptions and is mostly false. Jesus Christ himself mentioned endlessly that he was not GOD Almighty nor part of GOD Almighty, and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is far and is innocent from all of the things you said about him.

The bottom line is this: You have nothing, and you believe in nothing. This is what I tried to demonstrate to Nabeel during my debate with him. Everything you stand for is made of falsehood, man-made conclusions, mistrationslations, mis-interpretations, conjectures, false and fabricated history, and false and fabricated evolutions of Jesus' character and fabrications about him throughout the Church's history. We on the other hand, have the Divine Truth of Allah Almighty, all Praise and Glory are due to Him and only Him Alone.

Osama Abdallah

ubiquitouserendipity says: osama the great (in your own little mind), thanks for the eternal wishes. you are truly an example of your failed belief set.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...
Osama,

Don't respond to this nutjob ubiquitouserendipity. Let him go to hell. I can insult his religion, the age of the Vigin Mary etc, etc but I am not going to. I am not going to let him get to me. I am not going to sink down to his level.

People like that are best left alone.
August 1, 2009 9:09 PM

ubiquitouserendipity says: for my three favorite detractors: i appreciate that you can’t handle the truth about your “prophet,” the pedophile savage mohammed. that is your problem, not mine. there are folks here who try as they might to educate you and to point out the faerrey taelle nature of your pagan moon/rock god. But I do know this, all the education in the world can’t save a man’s soul (re: bart ehrman, for a prime example). i am not qualified to debate the intricacies of the vomitus you call religion, but,,, having been a Christian since march 8, 1976, @ 3:45pm pacific time, and having handled the Truth since that time, I can recognize the counterfeits,,, you guys got handed a bucket of poo, and now you wallow in it. the disgusting nature of your “savior” mohammed is reported by your own historians, and you guys get all worked up cause someone points out to you the facts.

continued~

ubiquitouserendipity said...

~continuing

without the true Comforter, you all are stuck with your mohammedan trinity of worship: the kaaba (a rock which you pray towards, aspire to circumnavigate, and kiss), a book which you claim was written in heaven (by allah, the god of hate, the best deceiver, and mohammed's cosmis bell-boy), but which it is obvious is the spawn of satan, and of course that puke mohammed. Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord of Glory.

please know this, i measure and consider my words. i write, then edit, and “try” to clean my writings of anything i think is inappropriate. if i offended some pagans here, so be it. be offended. it is better that i offend than not offend because you guys think you are better than the rest of humanity. this ain’t arabia,,, in america, you have the right to get offended. I think that you need to know, in layman’s terms, that some of us “regular joes” ain’t buying either your phony religion, or your demands that the rest of the world not offend your pedophile prophet. i couldn’t care less about that.

May the G_d of love and light, Hashem Adonai, He Who abides in unapproachable light, reveal His Self to you, by the power of His Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Who will lead you unto the truth of Jesus, the Messiah of G_d.

Peace, in His love, papajoe

Osama Abdallah said...

ubiquitouserendipity,

Your crap is refuted thoroughly at:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/que11.htm

AND

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac4.htm#links

You keep barking "pedophile" on the Prophet who MARRIED, NOT RAPED, a 9-year old girl. Tell me, is the GOD of the Bible also a pedophile for taking to Himself 32 virgin young girls in the book of Number 31 after the battle of Median?

Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/age3.htm

AND

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac12.htm#links


Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

ubiquitouserendipity said...

Osama Abdallah said...
ubiquitouserendipity,

Your crap is refuted thoroughly at:

AND

You keep barking "pedophile" on the Prophet who MARRIED, NOT RAPED, a 9-year old girl. Tell me, is the GOD of the Bible also a pedophile for taking to Himself 32 virgin young girls in the book of Number 31 after the battle of Median?

Visit:

AND

Osama Abdallah

August 6, 2009 8:02 AM

ubiquitouserendipity says: osama i wouldn't visit your site (or allow for its advertisement) if yours were the only site on the web. i don't have the money to waste on the deceit of a hate-filled bigot.

as for your red herring, we are talking about your pedophile prophet, not the One True and Living G_d, Hashem Adonai.

for your information, pedophilia is rape (violence) regardless of the age of the little girl. your puke prophet "married" a 6 year old little girl, and had sex with her at the age of nine. that is pedophilia. mohammed was the most disgusting of historical figures.

by the by pumpkin,,, i just today obtained a copy of the yusuf ali 11th edition, copyright 2006. since the kkkoran is the most perfect book, being clear in all of its meanings, please explain the meaning of surah 2, ayah 1. alif lam mim... do you know what it means to me? it means "tee hee hee."

quit defending an obvious pervert. it makes you seem like someone who is himself perverted.

may He Who abides in unapproachable light, Hashem Adonai, the G_d of love and light, bless your heart and mind, and bring you to a knowledge of He Who framed the worlds before time was, Yehoshua ha Meshiach. Peace, in His love, papajoe

Sepher Shalom said...

Osama said: "Tell me, is the GOD of the Bible also a pedophile for taking to Himself 32 virgin young girls in the book of Number 31 after the battle of Median?"

Of all the silly things I've seen you say Osama, this one has to be near the top of the list. Are you under the impression that passage somehow says G-d had sex with those women? It certainly doesn't say any such thing. In order for there to be any parallel between ubiquitouserendipity saying that Muhammad was a pedophile, and you saying G-d is a pedophile, you would have to believe the text says G-d had sex with them. How do you make this kind of stuff up?

Also, I would like to point out the text does not in any way say what the age of any of them was, while on the other hand, we have multiple attestation from Sahih Sittah about the age of Aisha. Here is what the verse says:

Num 31:40 "and the human beings were 16,000, from whom the LORD’S levy was 32 persons."

How you go from that verse to "G-d is a pedophile" is beyond me.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Osama what did I say? I said Don't respond to nutjobs like these. And why not use the 12 year old Virgin Mary example?

Thanks,
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Sepher Shalom said...

Ehteshaam said: "And why not use the 12 year old Virgin Mary example?"

Maybe because, as you just said, she was a virgin. And, I do wish that you would stop begging the question that it's some forgone conclusion that Mary was 12 when she married Joseph. Next, please realize that even if she was 12, her marriage to Joseph is not a binding behavior on us today, nor does it set an example for us the way Muhammad's Sunnah sets an example for Muslims.

In spite of your repeated ignoring of these points, they do actually matter.

Ghazawan said...

I just start watching the debates and looking at this powerful website God Bless you all.
It seem obvious that Mr. Osama Abdulah can use every word in the Old Testoment and New Testoment and convert them and mutilate them in his way, it happen in his other debate about is mohammad prophet and miraculous Quran, he can make every thing miraculous and true if he want to and he can refute the truth and make it a lie or never happen when he want to, the best way my friends is to investigate the truth yourself my friends and brothers, simply by going on the verses of Bible that he mentioned and see how he manipulate the words . For Example Genesis 11: 1-9 Osama said that Old testament show God is weak and afraid from humans, and that Bible is not true because humans Start building Ski Scrapers. Wom what amazing thinking that Osama has to dispute the Bible because there are ski scrapers now days, If we look at the Verse will show that God Never was afraid from human and God never Ban towers from being built up, it is written in way of faith showing up that human need to stop thinking that no human can challenge God, or be creedy in heaven in pleasurable way not spiritual way the way of people of Babylon thought, for sure God know the heaven is far far away from reaching of people even with highest tower or ski scraper, and is showing the only way to reach heaven is through him, and look at verse will show that nothing was written saying God was afraid or weak but it was Osama`s Ideas and conclusion.

Ghazawan said...

I just start watching the debates and looking at this powerful website God Bless you all.
It seem obvious that Mr. Osama Abdulah can use every word in the Old Testoment and New Testoment and convert them and mutilate them in his way, it happen in his other debate about is mohammad prophet and miraculous Quran, he can make every thing miraculous and true if he want to and he can refute the truth and make it a lie or never happen when he want to, the best way my friends is to investigate the truth yourself my friends and brothers, simply by going on the verses of Bible that he mentioned and see how he manipulate the words . For Example Genesis 11: 1-9 Osama said that Old testament show God is weak and afraid from humans, and that Bible is not true because humans Start building Ski Scrapers. Wom what amazing thinking that Osama has to dispute the Bible because there are ski scrapers now days, If we look at the Verse will show that God Never was afraid from human and God never Ban towers from being built up, it is written in way of faith showing up that human need to stop thinking that no human can challenge God, or be creedy in heaven in pleasurable way not spiritual way the way of people of Babylon thought, for sure God know the heaven is far far away from reaching of people even with highest tower or ski scraper, and is showing the only way to reach heaven is through him, and look at verse will show that nothing was written saying God was afraid or weak but it was Osama`s Ideas and conclusion.

Ghazawan said...

I just start watching the debates and looking at this powerful website God Bless you all.
It seem obvious that Mr. Osama Abdulah can use every word in the Old Testoment and New Testoment and convert them and mutilate them in his way, it happen in his other debate about is mohammad prophet and miraculous Quran, he can make every thing miraculous and true if he want to and he can refute the truth and make it a lie or never happen when he want to, the best way my friends is to investigate the truth yourself my friends and brothers, simply by going on the verses of Bible that he mentioned and see how he manipulate the words . For Example Genesis 11: 1-9 Osama said that Old testament show God is weak and afraid from humans, and that Bible is not true because humans Start building Ski Scrapers. Wom what amazing thinking that Osama has to dispute the Bible because there are ski scrapers now days, If we look at the Verse will show that God Never was afraid from human and God never Ban towers from being built up, it is written in way of faith showing up that human need to stop thinking that no human can challenge God, or be creedy in heaven in pleasurable way not spiritual way the way of people of Babylon thought, for sure God know the heaven is far far away from reaching of people even with highest tower or ski scraper, and is showing the only way to reach heaven is through him, and look at verse will show that nothing was written saying God was afraid or weak but it was Osama`s Ideas and conclusion. There will be more comments to come on this debate because Mr. Abdullah brought lots of points which are a relevant to the debate.
Genesis 11:1-9 (New International Version)
Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
 1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.
 3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
 8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Footnotes:
a. Genesis 11:2 Or from the east ; or in the east
b. Genesis 11:2 That is, Babylonia
c. Genesis 11:9 That is, Babylon; Babel sounds like the Hebrew for confused .

Ghazawan said...

Hi Brothers God Bless you all
Other point that Brother Osama mentioned that what are the documents or proves that Paul the apostle is authentic and claims that he changed our believe as Christian and after all the resources and historians and scholars that Nabeel mentioned he refused them and wants more, I want to Say the 10 apostles that followed Jesus Chris became Martyrs for his name except apostle John that died from old age and worship and the most of the 72 apostles that followed him did the same, for the same believe, from those apostles we have documents in our Holly Gospel till this time that share same believe and concept and faith that Gospels of Mark , Matthew, Luke and John share those are the letters of Paul, James , and Peter, they never contradict each others or contradict the teaching of Gospels those are documents from 1rst century.
Other point I noticed as is mentioned by Islamic scholars that Muhammed never contradict Christianity or Judaism while he was in Meca, he only start contradicting them after few years after going to Madena after he became powerful, and the question is why Muhammed did not agree about one of them or both of them when he started in meca and remain on his decision, what are the reasons that made him change his mind against Christian, Jewish, his treaty with others neighbors tribes, adoption, slavery ( in Meca he freed Belal in Madena he had slaves as many he wants), marriages,
Other point let see the Quran In Sura Mariam: (Issa saying peace on me the day I born , and the day died and the day send a live) that mean that God will send him to the world to live there and die and get alive again (resurrected), this Aya ( sura) came while muhammed was in meca after he took refuge in Ethiopia in Christian land, which mean Jesus Died and resurrected, but he changed his mind after meeting with Christian of Nigran in Saudi Arabia after they debate with him and refused his prophesy, and got his Verses against the trinity and crucifixion few years after migration to Madena.
Another Verses is Sura Al Omran: ( God said to Issa I will let you Die ( Mutauafeka) and raise by me then purify you from the infedils) there is no other meaning to Mutauafeka in arabic but dead or not a life ( In al Emam Alrazi, Abn Issaq, and in Emam Albethawi) in other way mean quran said jesus died then risen . those two sura canceled or aggregated by Sura Al Nesaa.
Thanks and God bless you all with grace of our Lord Jesus Chris, and again do not listen to me, Nabeel or Osama but go check your books and the Gospels and investigate your self.

Ibrahim said...

I appreciate the debate from both of you. I think the world would be a better place if people would understand where the other is coming from in their beliefs and why. Ignorance is not a good thing for anyone. Your thoughtfullness was appreciated.

We know from popular court cases that truth is not always established through the success of persuasive words alone. The guilty at times are considered innocent. And at times the innocent are considered guilty. And so a lawyer's eloquence or lack thereof should not be a deciding factor. However, the points that are articulated whether well or poorly may express the main issues on a matter.

Yes I do wish Osama would have stayed more directly on the topic of the crucification and death of Jesus. But then again I am not sure what ground rules had been previously established prior to the debate as to what sources could be cited? I'm not sure that it had been predecided that Nabeel would frame the debate with his sources and that Osama would have to abide by them. I do not think it was to his fault that he cited others.

In the passage cited by Osama when there was just satan and Jesus together, satan tempting Jesus, and Jesus said to satan "you [satan] shall not tempt the LORD your God" of whom in context was He then refering? Was He not refering to Himself as the one being tempted?

And I wish Nabeel could give more justification for Jesus' crucification and death than just with persuasive words. If only words are used (no matter how persuasive) then you reduce the reality behind them to insufficent matters of past history, arguments of reason, or philosophy.

Upon this the debate may rise or fall but the present reality remains vague.

1 Corinthians 2:4
"And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power..."

1 Corinthians 4:20
"For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power."

Matthew 10:5-8
Luke 10:1-9

It seems to me biblical that the apologetics used by Jesus in and through the earliest church was more than with the employ of textual references such as were used in this debate.

Historically and chronologically speaking, the development of Christianity came first and then Islam. I think the debate however is on whether the Christianity of today is a good reflection of the Christianity that was... whether it has any connection to Christ being raised to the right hand of God or whether something has been lost in transmission?

If Jesus/Isa has ascended (both of you) then there is a need for Allah/God's verification to support these claims. It is not through reference to Incarnation, through verification by debate, human efforts, political pressure, religious conquest or neglegently looking ahead to an eschatological fulfillment to establish and prove them.

If Jesus IS the Son of God and IS sitting on the right hand of God TODAY then THAT reality must be known today. How is it that the Christian preoccupation is with future or past historical events to the point where little is presently known of this matter (neither in proclaimation nor even in print)?

Upon this the ultimate issue between Islam and Christianity rises and falls.

---------
p.s. I see many blog posts by Osama. It would be best if there was one blog shared and owned by both Nabeel and Osama. =) God bless you both as you explore these matters.

sphilip05 said...

this fat blue shirt is all over the place and is totally inconvincing.

Mr Lim said...

How was that the Koran book created 1,400 years back could copy from the many compiled Bible books which were compiled no more than 800 years back?

I google search this:

When was the Bible as we know it first compiled and put into the ...
Dear Gramps, When was the Bible as we know it first compiled and put into the context as we know it? Was it Constantine1 who originally gathered the texts ...
http://www.askgramps.org/when-was-the-bible-as-we-know-it-first-compiled-and-put/ - Cached

Mr Lim said...

If a verdict has to be pronounced in the court of agnostic judge who could be the winner of falsehoods between Christianity and Islam, Christianity could be the winner for sure. No offence here. This is the truth from the third party! LOL!

rob said...

for my life i have no idea why osama contantly misqouts different text and seems to believe there relivant to the topic --------- like in one case he used the testing of jesus and psalms 91 as way of taking apart the crucifixion

he states that satan tempted jesus to jump off the mountain and attaches it to matthew 4 : 8, and the countpart in mark and luke but what he fails to do is give the relevent info on this --- cause it was not a mounting he tempted him jump but the temple and like the mountian and its percific test he sais no

1 ----- no where in thext does it mention he was tempted to jump off a mount in either psalms 91 or in the testing of jesus
2 ------ this has nothing to do with the crucifixion in any shape or form, as these two event had different purposes

a) the testings of jesus to establish his authority over all things like the devil, the angels, and man kind u manking u may deny it but its ultimately the truth
b) the crucifixion in itself is the calling of jesus' life ---- to save us sinners and give us eternal life and salvation, john 3 : 16- 21, matthew 20 : 20- 28 and other passages

so to equate these two event to use one to council the other is a dishonest action and is not welcome

donna60 said...

Mr Abdallah should remember, or perhaps he hasn't had it explained to him, that Christians have never believed that death was a state in which God was not taking care of them. For example, I believe that the promise God made to me in Psalm 91 will apply even when I die.

The Jews must have understood the same thing, wouldn't they? Or else why would Job have said "Even after my skin is destroyed, yet from my flesh I shall see God?"

I can understand why Mr Abdullah used Isaiah 53, by the way. I can understand his point, however, once again, he might not understand the same faith that Christians have that we, as Jesus did, shall have resurrection. And in that case all of Isaiah 53 applies to our suffering Savior.

I would like to tell Mr Abdullah that I appreciate his willingness to debate his faith. I have frequently read his website, and I must say that his very endearing human face has softened the thoughts I had formed about him.

donna60 said...

Poor Nabeel! Did your mother get things mixed up and get you in trouble publically? Rest assured that you are in good company with ..Pres. Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and...my poor sons.(hee, hee hee)

God bless all sons who have survived their mothers' best intentions. I always wonder about the second chapter of John and the marriage at Cana, and Jesus' plea to his mother for more time.

Johnny said...

Osama's side of the debate was pathetic. I was really hoping for an intellectual debate, but it ended up being two arguments, and no real discussion. The topic of Did Jesus rise from the dead is clear from historical sources, so I guess there's really nothing to debate. Perhaps that's why Osama didn't address the topic?

Brian S. said...

Wow- amazing historial evidence that Jesus Christ did in fact die on a cross and rise again from the dead! I can't believe I missed this debate two years ago.

I thought it was interesting that, while Mr. Abdellah totally discredited the reliability of the New Testament and sometimes even the Old Testament, he would also refer to certain texts in the Bible in order to prove his case that Jesus was not divine and did not die on the cross and rise again. For example, if the writer of one of the gospels intended to show that these things were true of Jesus, why pull a text out of that particular gospel in oder to prove that these things were not true? Or, why even bother talking about Psalm 91 if the Bible is indeed corrupted? That does not make any sense at all.

Also, I found it interesting that Mr. Abdellah labored to show that certain New Testament books are questionable in their authenticity, but he assumed the reliability of other books like the Apocolypse of Peter when making his case for who Jesus really was. If you are going to say the New Testament is unreliable, then it is not fair to assume these other gospels are reliable as well (unless in fact you backed up your argument for or against the reliability of a particular text with evidence).

Beehive Hope said...

I propose a debate between Leandro Quadros and Osama Abdallah ...
It is a very difficult challenge of Osama win!
http://www.leandroquadros.com.br/

Amalric Richardson said...

Nabeel Qureshi clearly knew how Osama Abdallah was going to attempt to question the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. I just wouldn’t have thought about presenting the case for Jesus’ death. Osama Abdallah argued that because there is no prophecy in the Old Testament forecasting the Messiah’s death and particularly death by crucifixion, then Jesus was not crucified and I assume he would argue that this means that he didn’t rise from the dead.

It appears that Osama takes this position because as a Muslim he believes that Jesus is the Messiah and that he will come again at the end of time before the final judgment. However this position only works if you believe that Jesus is the Messiah and has to meet all the prophecies in the Old Testament. Therefore I believe it rests on faulty logic and it can’t succeed with a neutral audience.

Osama uses the Apocalypse of Peter and states falsely that the version he is going to quote from is the same version that nearly made it into the Bible. There are three versions of the Apocalypse of Peter, two of which are from the 2nd century, one partial in Greek and a fuller one Ethiopic version. However it is the Coptic version that Osama quotes and Wikipedia states that, “The text takes gnostic interpretations of the crucifixion to the extreme”. Wikipedia does not state there is any doubt about this version being Gnostic as Osama stated.

Osama then attacks the reliability of the New Testament is a very general way and implies nothing can be believed in it, while still quoting from it as a source. I believe there is a better case to be made than the one Osama made.

Amalric Richardson said...

Part 2

Nabeel rests his case on two types of evidence - direct and supporting. I am not sure these are very good definitions. It is normal to talk about primary and secondary sources where primary sources are written near the time of the event and secondary are those that discuss the primary sources. The best primary sources are written very close to the event.

I think he states that there is non-Christian evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, including Jewish evidence but doesn’t quote it. If he accepts the Jewish evidence that Jesus was illegitimate then we should consider their evidence however I don’t believe he accepts the Jewish evidence regarding Jesus’ birth and therefore we have no need to consider their evidence. The other non-Christian evidence does not provide independent evidence from that which Christians were presenting. Even if we could accept the texts as being genuine the authors would have got their information from Christians. This also applies to “the enemies of Christianity” when they say what they think believers believed and it isn’t independent of the Christian sources. Some of his direct sources are late; being 2nd or 3rd century Christian writings and so can be ignored as being indirect.

Therefore there are not over 40 independent sources for Jesus’ resurrection there are really two main sets of evidence - Paul and the gospels. (Paul’s evidence is not that of an opponent but it is of a Christian – a biased source.) Nebeel seems to concede that Mark’s gospel is the earliest and may have been written about 70 CE. Most New Testament scholars believe that large parts of Matthew and Luke are edited versions of Mark and that John knew at least Luke’s gospel and maybe Matthew and/or Mark too. There are no resurrection appearances in Mark and we can see the way Luke and Matthew use Mark to embellish the empty tomb story. All references to the empty tomb go back to Mark’s gospel and that is the only source for it. I would argue that even if there is a pre-Marcan tradition behind the empty tomb story it could have been created by Gentile Christians in the same way that Mark has Jesus talking about women divorcing men (Mk 10:12), which happened in Roman society but not in Jewish society. We can assume that the empty tomb was only know to the majority of Christians after 70 CE and it would therefore be impossible for them to go to Jerusalem to look at it, as suggested by Nabeel because Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE.

chiki waren said...

please dont quarrel
there is no true religion
JESUS CHRIST is the only truth!!!

Rudy Mitchell said...

Blessings,
Please read the following sources if you are serious about studying the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Resurrection:


Craig, William Lane. The Son Rises: The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000.
See also Craig’s Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the
Historicity of the Resurrection. Rev. ed. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 2002. This is a more comprehensive study, but since it is very expensive, try to check it out at a library. For a debate format of Craig’s points, see: Copan, Paul, and Ronald Tacelli, eds. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Fiction? A Debate Between W. L. Craig and Gerd Ludeman. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Habermas, Gary. The Risen Jesus and Future Hope. Lanham, Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield, 2003.

Habermas, Gary R., and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2004.
This is an excellent, practical presentation of the evidence for the resurrection.

Ladd, George Eldon. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1975.

Licona, Michael R. The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2010.
A careful and methodical presentation of the evidence for the resurrection
from a historian’s perspective. One of the most important books on the resurrection.

Stewart, Robert B., ed. The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N.T. Wright in Dialogue. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2006.

Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 3. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress, 2003.
This in-depth study is the definitive study of the Resurrection. Wright
establishes that the apostles meant that the Resurrection was a bodily resurrection,
and that there is sufficient evidence for belief in the historical Resurrection.