Tuesday, February 9, 2010

My Written Response to Yahya Snow: Do I Misbehave For Believing Islam to be Demonic?

I will respond in writing to Yahya's words here. The Youtube response on his youtube will come later.

Let me just say that I intend in no way to attack Yahya Snow personally by my wording here, even though they might come out harsh. I hope we can in future continue our dialogue. Yet I know his view represents the view of the majority of Muslims, hence I defend myself not against so much Yahya but against the common view of Islam.

I am responding to his comments, which can be viewed here:


First of all me believing that Islam is demonic is not to be deemed as misbehavior. If I went out on the street to riot against Islam, kill and burn their houses or instigate violence against Muslims, yes that would be misbehaviour. Me holding to the view that Christianity is the truth and what contradicts it being a lie and hence from the devil is not misbehaviour; you need to utilize a different vocabulary here.

Furthermore, what would you say about the Hindu religion? The Hindu religion certainly expresses itself by the supernatural!

Would you agree with me that such forces are demonic or from God?

If you agree with me ought you not correctly to describe yourself as misbehaving. Yet if you do not agree with me, then according to your standard you behave, but at the same time you welcome the forces obtained by paganism and idolatry.

Hence exposing falsehood is not tantamount to misbehaviour.

Why do I believe Islam to be demonic?

Well it contradicts the Christian faith. It supposedly is a revelation from Gabrial, which based upon Paul in Galatians one, would be a false angel, a demon.

That is of course unless Muhammad had no experience at all and merely along with others fabricated the Qur'an, which explains the high amount of ancient Greek science.



Furthermore, the Qur'an rejects the death of Jesus, which according to Mark's Gospel renders the Qur'an as from the devil (Mark 8: 31-33).

Do I need to continue?

It has to be my right as a human being, living in the West and being a Christian, to believe that Islam is not from God--without being portrayed as someone who misbehaves.

Furthermore, the comment you referred to, related to an event in Pakistan in which a 12 year old Christian girl was tortured to death. These attrocities are common in Muslim countries. The perpetrators ussually get away, and you know as well as I that such injustice is in accordance to the Sharia Law. Which is why I call the religion demonic.

You should not worry about me, following my right and my faith in not accepting the religion of Islam as divine. All Muslims reject the Christian faith I believe in as a corruption. Should that not worry us as well?

Secondly I reacted to the attrocities against my dear sister who was raped and tortured to death.

Considering, that Islam does not permit a Muslim to be punished to death for the murder of a Christian, but merely to pay some blood money (correct me if I am wrong) (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) and that the Qur'an commands Muslims to attack the Christian and Jews and to fight them and to subjugate until they feel humiliated (Sura 9: 29) and to be harsh with the unbelievers (9: 123) and that Christians and Jews are the worst of all creatures (Sura 98: 6) and that Christians have no juridical right in the court system (Bukhari) then I fully understand why and how my sister was victimised in this way and why such attrocities are ussually acceptable and hardly ever condemned in the Muslim community (even in Britain)--I find that repulsive, worrying and demonic--if it is not, then what is it?

And why do I misbehave for considering such as wrong, repulsive and demonic (at least I can trace the possibility of such attrocites as acceptable to the Islamic wrings---that worries me).

So don't worry about me, a British Christian believing based upon his faith and the actions among Muslims linked to the writings in Islam that Islam in demonic and not from God.

I have my right to believe so, without being deemed evil or unwise.

Lets rather worry about these attrocities.

I have yet to see Muslims speak out against the attrocities that Muslims commit against non-Muslims in Muslim societies--I find that worrying, extremely worrying.

Since you encourage me to consider Nadir Ahmed in your reply, I think I am eligable to post you a link to Answering-Islam on these matters:


You also say that I owe it to the Muslim communities in Bradford, Birmingham and London and their respective behaviour against me to be respectful and not declare that Islam is not of God or from the devil.

Now I am not sure whether you read my biography. I did live in Bradford for a while where I met the Muslims, I did express my opinions (they did), yet because I did I was publically insulted, intimitated and abused greatly, I had stones thrown after me. I sat in a Muslim home and was told that I could was not even allowed to ask indicative negative questions about Islam, even though they were allowed to attack my faith. At the same time they glorified the Islamic Regime in Sudan for being the most Godly based country in the world for following the Sharia. Think about it: Sudan, the country that has systematically butchered and genocided millions of Christians. A country in which my Christian brothers have been systematically shot, had their limbs cut of and often crucified. A land that has forced an estimate of half a million of my Christian sisters into slavery, either as concubines or sex slaves after their fathers, husbands and sons had been butchered.

You can imagine the insult on me a Christian, much like telling a Jew that Nazi Germany was the most examplary society in the world when it comes to moral, social and human conduct.

And how about Birmingham, my biography explains how Muslims attacked and insulted my faith openly on the street, without respect.

Do you really think I owe these communities anything, except to love them and expose falsehood and share the truth.

My biography on my apologetics can we viewed here:


This was only a short written response, I will upload a youtube dealing with your youtube arguments.

I said I welcome criticism, but this critic has no logical basis; it begs me to accept the attrocities against my Christian family.

Hence I do not view my reaction as unwise or wrong, I stand up for the truth and those suffering who are forgotten and neglected due to Western political correctness.

If that means disrespecting those who propagate the faith behind this evil, I will gladly disrepect the religion, who wouldn't?


minoria said...


I have just read your story of how you became an apologist.It's inspiring.You know more than I do.Keep up the great work.Believe me if it were NOT for people like you and others I would never have given Jesus serious thought.

Here is something I have pondered:


I know many skeptical NT scholars and alot of Muslim apologists say THEY are the closest to the real teachings of Jesus.


1.No VIRGIN BIRTH,Jesus only a man.
2.Paul was a false teacher.


PAUL and EBIONITES BOTH believed Jesus had died/physically resurrected.That leaves Islam in this:

Allah NEVER told the first disciples Jesus had NOT been killed(instead he was RESCUED).It was a SECRET for 600 YEARS.Were is the logic/wisdom/rationality in THAT?


If Allah had,technically speaking,DECEIVED the disciples of Jesus(by NEVER telling them he had been RESCUED,had NEVER died),then isn't THAT disrespectful to all humanity?What can guarantee he has not done the same to his follower Mohammed in some important detail?

minoria said...


I understand Yahya Snow being hurt by Islam being called DEMONIC.He is a sincere bloke.Now TECHNICALLY speaking,for me,Islam is NOT DEMONIC since I don't believe a SPIRIT appeared to Mohammed.On that technicality.


He said a SPIRIT appeared to him(angel MORONI).The evidence shows he INVENTED the story.So no BAD SPIRIT sent by SATAN was involved.Not at all.Mormonism is not demonic in the sense Satan had a DIRECT hand.No,it was a MAN.

Yahya Snow,when a person for X reasons says Islam is something like demonic,it's ONLY a reference to ABSTRACT IDEAS,a belief system called Islam.Islam is not a person.So it's in no way intended as something to hurt you personally,as a human being.And you are always welcome to participate in the blog.

minoria said...


The other comment section has become too full(99 comments)so I decided to comment here.

First,I'm glad the debate went well.I have heard TONY COSTA debate in youtube.He has a very good voice,argues clearly.I copied extra info from him.


I have tried to find out if there was such a belief among Eastern Christians.None.It could be Chaud was referring to:


A group there says a tomb there has Jesus' body.He died at 120,after surviving the crucifixion.They don't allow scientitsts to open the tomb to:
1.See if there are real bones.
2.How old they are.
3.Of what RACE
4.If of a MAN.


ISLAM says Jesus went in BODY up to heaven ALIVE.If the Kasmir body is that of Jesus (Jesus dead)then Islam is FALSE.Or you would have to reinterpret the Koran to mean it was his SPIRIT that was taken up by Allah.


So for 1,900 years Jesus' body has been in Kashmir and known ONLY in a little area in KASHMIR(till recently).The rest of the world knew nothing.That would not be the best plan conceivable to guard the truth of Jesus NOT dying on the cross.

minoria said...

Part 1:


Chaud stated that the "no compulsion in religion" verse has not been abrogated.The non-Muslims who say it are wrong.They say however that most Muslim experts say it has.


It is approved by the 4 SUNNI schools and by the SHIA experts.I always try to take the MINIMALIST position.Let's say there has been NO abrogation.


Legally NO abrogation(DE JURE,by law,it's valid).But with DEATH for leaving Islam the abrogation is DE FACTO(in reality,in fact,if not legally).There has been a CONTRADICTION in Islamic law(Sunni and Shia) for 1,400 years then.Muslims should address it and eliminate all constraints on leaving Islam in Muslim nations.

minoria said...




The communist nations legally had human rights in their constitutions but DE FACTO there was discrimination based on this,on that(religion,social class),no real free speech.



The US signed the UN declaration of Human Rights in 1948 yet for some 20 years there was RACIAL SEGREGATION(legal discrimination) in the US South,a DE FACTO violation of human rights.


IRENEUS in 180 AD said the author was JOHN.The ALOGI,a GNOSTIC group,said it was CERINTHIUS(lived circa 100 AD).Is Cerinthius a candidate?Ireneus knew of him and wrote against him in his book "Against Heresies."


CERINTHIUS,from what I can gather,believed Jesus was only a man.If he had written the Gospel of John he wouldn't have said Jesus was God.It can't be by him.

minoria said...


Chaud commented my idea of it was different from others.It's not,just check out "original sin,wikipedia".The idea all of us being "born sinners" means we have that defect from the beginning.It's done when the chance comes.

Royal Son said...

Minoria, you bring up a number of very interesting points. Allow me to probe a little here...

Regarding the point of Jesus' body in Kashmir while being taken up by Allah spiritually, one wonders what Muslims would call it when the spirit is separated from the body except death. Thus we unbelievers are expected to believe that Allah basically rescued Jesus from death by crucifixion by killing Him himself.

Regarding the authorship of John, not that I rely upon a 600 year late biography but Ibn Ishaq stated in His biography of Mohammad that the Injeel was written by John.

For all it's volumes of hadiths and biographies of Mohammad, Islam is not a happy companion with history.

minoria said...

Hello Royal Son:

I had not thought of that implication.It's a strange thought,Jesus surviving and going to India and yet the knowledge he had NOT died from the crucifixion disappeared in Palestine and was taken to Kashmir.


I read the article suggested by Chaud in islamic awareness.SAMIRI is ARABIC means,or it's only meaning is,SAMARITAN.The article said the Samaritans called themselves "the OBSERVERS(of the Torah)":SHAMERIN.They did NOT call themselves SAMARITANS(Shomronim).

By JESUS' time the JEWS called them Samaritans,there was even a region called SAMARIA,where they lived,between GALILEE and JUDEA.The Jews,including Jesus,didn't consider them Jewish.The article says the OBSERVERS claimed descent from JOSEPH through his sons MANASSEH and EPHRAIM.No problem with that.


The KORAN is in ARABIC.It's not in Hebrew.The ARABIC word for OBSERVER is NOT Samiri.The Koran should have used the ARABIC word that in Hebrew means OBSERVER(shamerin).Instead it uses a word that means,in Arabic,Samaritan.If it had used it then you could say:"They called themselves in Hebrew "the Observers",the Koran says an "observer"(here put in the Arabic word for it) spoke with Moses 3X.It's the same group.

minoria said...

Hello Chaud:

The more I think about the stranger it becomes.I will explain:

SURA 20:85:"He said:"...but the SAMARITAN misled them."

20:87:"They said:"We did...this is what the SAMARITAN suggested."

20:95:"He said:"What is the matter with you,oh,SAMARITAN?"


The writing is in ARABIC but notice,notice that it's a quotation in Arabic from 3 sentences that were ORIGINALLY in HEBREW.Moses and his people spoke HEBREW.So 20:85/20:87/20:95 are TRANSLATIONS,supposedly faithful,literal ones.


That means,according to the Koran,the original Hebrew words were:

20:85:"He said:"...but the SHOMRON(Hebrew for Samaritan)misled them."
20:87:"They said:"We did...this is what the SHOMRON suggested."
20:95:"He said:"What is the matter with you,oh,SHOMRON?"


Moses and the others could not possible,speaking Hebrew in 1,400 BC have used the word shomron.It did NOT exist then.The translation in the Koran is a bad one.

Austin said...

"I don't believe a SPIRIT appeared to Mohammed.On that technicality."

But something happened to Muhammed. He first believed he was possessed by Satan, as an angel basically attacked him. Pressing down on his chest hard so that he could hardly breath, and then demanding that he read. I can't remember which Haddith it is in, but it's a scarey read.

I suppose it could have been a psychotic phenomenon caused by spending so long in the desert sands

Sepher Shalom said...

On the issue of Muhammad and the Hira cave-

I can think of a number of choices to explain what actually happened. A few of the most reasonable seem to be:

1) a supernatural being appeared to Muhammad
2) Muhammad experienced some sort of psychological episode (it was all in his mind)
3) The event never happened at all, but was invented in the 200 some years between Muhammad's life and the Hadith compilation

I think for anyone who holds a Biblical worldview, where supernatural beings exist and interact with people, it can be problematic to claim #2. Now, it is still possible that #2 is actually what happened, but I think as Bible believers we must hold a higher level of proof for this than a naturalist-materialist in order to insure we are being consistent. We need to be careful that our claims and standards, when applied to the recorded experiences of Abraham, Moses etc., wouldn't also lead to rejecting them. I think #3 can be problematic in some ways. Based on the principle of embarrassing testimony (Muhammad not knowing what it was; a woman informing Muhammad what happened), I think we can grant at least the historicity that Muhammad claimed to see a spirit and reported it to Khadija (this of course doesn't rule out #2 taking place and being misreported as a supernatural event).

Those are the 3 explanations I see as most reasonable, and am willing to entertain all 3 as possibilities, but I am always trying to keep in mind that my standards must not also refute my beliefs (after all, I don't want to start sounding like your average Muslim apologist).

Taking the Hadith literature at face value as if it were reliable history, we can see a number of things:

1. Muhammad didn't know who or what the spirit he believed he saw in the cave was.
2. His first impression was that it was evil.
3. Khadija is the one that told him it was Jibril.

This leaves me to wonder;

Was Khadija a prophet?

Since the prophet of Islam has made it clear that one woman is not enough to act as a legal witness in civil matters (they are deficient in intellect and religion according to Muhammad as reported in al-Bukhari Hadith), why is her one testimony enough in this case?