Yahya Snow recently reviewed my debate with Osama Abdallah on whether or not Muhammad is prophesied in the authentic Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It is the view of Muslims that Surah 7:157 of the Qur’an is a declaration from Allah that Muhammad is a true prophet whose identity and description can be found in the Torah and the Gospel that Christians and Jews have with them. This view was on trial in the debate and came up wanting, so Yahya set aside a month during which he worked on doing some major damage control for the Islamic cause.
Still Prevailing Until the Day of Resurrection
As we would expect, towards the beginning Yahya tells us that “upon reflection and scrutiny Osama Abdallah won this debate,” which makes Yahya the second of two people who thinks so, Osama being the other one; but we quickly learn that this is only true “after post-debate scrutiny and an appeal for consistency – things which Osama offered little [sic] in the actual debate…” Later in the review Yahya makes the following remark: “I think to the unbiased lay audience member….the Christian position would have seemed stronger concerning whether Prophet Muhammad was mentioned in the modern day Bible.” In short, according to Yahya, Osama “offered little in the actual debate” and “the Christian position…seemed stronger”. What these remarks amount to is an admission, in the only way Muslims who always claim victory know how to admit it, that in terms of the debate itself, i.e. when judged on the basis of what actually happened in the debate by people who are not biased, Osama lost. This begrudging admission is worth the price of the review. But Yahya’s review is a gift that keeps on giving.
If we didn’t have what is tantamount to an admission that Islam did not prevail in this debate, the fact that Yahya also said the debate made him “uncomfortable,” “annoyed” him, and was “hard” for him to watch, and also the fact that he seeks to dissuade other Muslims from watching the debate would point in the same direction. If I might be permitted to read between the lines and summarize what is going on when he says such things, Yahya does not really believe this debate was a victory for Islam, so much so that he hopes no one will watch and see that for themselves. He is hoping that his co-religionists will just take his word for it that Islam came out on top and that no one will watch the debate and find out otherwise. As an aside, it is interesting to note that Osama also was not happy with his in-debate performance. That is why he produced an edited copy of the debate providing some “post-debate scrutiny” of his own. It is to this version of the debate that Yahya links at the end of his article rather than to the unedited debate that we provided.
As if all that were not damning enough, Yahya speaks of Osama’s “poor verbal presentation” and “lack of fluidity, coherence…and continuation.” He says Osama’s case was “lacking structure” and “difficult to follow.” Several times over he tells us that at various junctures in the debate Osama “missed an important appeal to consistency,” “misses an opportunity,” and that he “made a crucial mistake.” In contrast to this he said: “The Christian…was much more fluent and generally was clear in his presentation.” At one point Yahya even tries to blame Osama’s failure on me, saying that because Osama did not argue in a certain way, this gave me an “unfair advantage” or the upper hand.
Yahya tries to prop up the serious defects in Osama’s presentation by saying he was debating too many people in a short period of time and thus was unprepared. For my part I don’t think the problem was that Osama chose to debate too many people in a short period of time, especially since Osama has been writing and debating on these issues for over a decade, and three of the four people he debated had very little debate experience and just as little time to prepare for the debates. I think the problem is that Osama agreed to debate at all, something he should never do at any time. Ever. He should follow Yahya’s lead and stay as far from debating as possible, especially if he is trying to defend something as indefensible as Islam. (Although, Yahya has been leaving people with the false impression that he has debated me before. His dissembling in this matter even caused him to be labeled the Ergun Caner of Islam. The truth is I have written a number of replies to Yahya’s material over the years, each of which proved him to be a one-hitter quitter, and he has never accepted even one of my numerous debate challenges, the most recent of which can be viewed here.)
While the Qur’an is not at all from the true God, Yahya really should have taken to heart its pronouncements that the true followers of Jesus would prevail until the day of resurrection (S. 3:55, 61:14). As much as he desperately tried to say otherwise in his review, he ended up saying in one way after another that my argumentation seemed stronger and would unnerve Muslims, just like it did him.
For all of Yahya’s criticisms of Osama being disorganized it is interesting just how disjointed his review happens to be. Quite often Yahya inadvertently changes topics or brings up something that has little to no relevance to what precedes or follows it in his review. In an attempt to tidy things up I will deal with all these tangential issues first before coming to the more pertinent stuff.
At one point in his review where Yahya started off making some comments about Deuteronomy 18, he suddenly makes a comment about something else I said when discussing Osama’s overreaching and misguided zeal that leads him to see Muhammad even in passages such as Isaiah 7:14. Later in the debate Osama claimed he never taught such a thing, and eventually he actually acknowledged the possibility that such a view might have been expressed on his website by one of his writers in the past. Ignoring Osama’s half-hearted admission that this view might have been endorsed on his website, which makes him at least partially responsible for the propagation of this view, Yahya tries to get mileage out of the fact that Osama at first feigned ignorance of it, saying:
Anthony’s poor researching was further highlighting [sic] by a blunder where he attempted to impugn his opponent for writing Isaiah 7:14 was about Prophet Muhammad – it turned out Osama Abdallah had no knowledge of this alleged claim!
Actually, it turns out that Yahya has only exposed his own failure as a researcher and his readiness to follow the say-so of a Muslim to his own chagrin. As it turns out, this view was taught on Osama’s website (*), so he hardly had “no knowledge of this alleged claim,” and as I said in the debate, if Osama does not agree with this outlandish idea which he eschews being the author of, then he has an obligation to take it down from his website and not perpetuate such a patently false idea. Otherwise he gives credence to the idea that he himself supports it, and he has no basis to complain if others call him out on it. It is also a good idea to take it down if for no other reason than that it is so farfetched that even Yahya couldn’t believe that it could possibly be true that this is taught on Osama’s website, a fact that caused Yahya to prove that he is a “poor researcher” who attempts to impugn me for a “blunder” that he alone is responsible for because he was too gullible and believes whatever comes down the pike from a fellow Muslim.
This should help other Muslims see why they should watch the debate instead of just listening to Yahya. It was this just-listen-to-what-I-say-and-don’t-bother-to-check-out-the-facts approach that Yahya followed when he took Osama’s word for it instead of checking out the facts like a good researcher ordinarily does.
The Charge of Interpolation
At another point in his review Yahya said: “In the middle of the debate he starts to interpolate his own bits into the Bible…” Yahya never tells us just what I am supposed to have interpolated into the Bible relevant to this debate. Instead he brings up an unrelated issue, misrepresenting me in the process, in what can only be considered an attempt to maliciously and fallaciously poison the well, which is an informal logical fallacy. According to Yahya Snow:
Anthony Rogers is one who has a history of interpolating his own bits and meanings into Biblical texts as shown by his belief that an angel in the Old Testament is God (last I checked on this guy he believed an angel in the Old Testament was God).
Yet, I have not at any time said that an angel is God. What I have pointed out, as Yahya very well knows since I wrote four blog posts against his misrepresentations in the past that he never replied to (1, 2, 3, 4), is that the Hebrew word, Mal’ak, a word that is sometimes translated “angel,” which itself is just a transliteration (not translation) of a Greek word with the same basic meaning, really only means “messenger”. As such the term has more of a functional than an ontological meaning, and it does not therefore always refer to the order(s) of spiritual creatures that inhabit heaven, hymn God’s praises, and carry out his will. Such beings certainly serve as messengers when God chooses, but so do other beings. In fact, not only can humans sometimes bring a message and thus be called messengers, but God Himself can also act in this capacity, particularly since God is not a uni-personal being. That is, one person of the Godhead can send another, and that other person can carry out the role or function of a messenger on behalf of the other members of Godhead.
To quickly illustrate this point: in the book of the prophet Malachi, whose name actually means “my messenger,” a fact in itself that should show all but the most implacable obscurantists that the word does not always refer to heavenly creatures, we find the following prophecy:
Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:1)
This prophecy speaks of two “messengers,” the first of whom will prepare the way for another. The second “messenger” is variously called “Me,” “the Lord,” and “the messenger of the covenant.” In all such cases the word “messenger” is a translation of the Hebrew word mal’ak, the word often translated as “angel.” But it is evident that the messengers in question here are not part of the created angelic host. In fact, in several ways the second messenger clearly appears to be God Himself. Since God is the one who is speaking, when it says that the first messenger will prepare the way before “Me,” it is obvious that the second messenger is Yahweh Himself. This also appears from the fact that the second messenger is called “the Lord,” ha adon, a title only used for God in the OT, and it is even said that this second messenger will “suddenly come to his temple,” which can only mean the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. In the New Testament this passage is interpreted as a prediction of the coming of John the Baptist (the first messenger) to prepare the way for Jesus (the second messenger). In both the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX) and in the Greek New Testament the word used to translate the Hebrew word mal’ak is angelos. This should be sufficient to debunk yet again Yahya’s poor and unscholarly attempts to discredit what I said in the debate, but for those who wish to read more on this issue, you may consult the blog posts linked above and the more detailed articles I wrote for Answering-Islam.org: The Malak Yahweh: Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament – Part 1, 2, 3a, 3b. You can also see the following debate I did on the subject: The Trinity in the Old Testament? Anthony Rogers vs. Ijaz Ahmad.
If bringing up unrelated issues that he misunderstands is somehow relevant to the debate review, then surely turnabout is fair play, and I am justified in pointing out that Yahya has quite a perverted side (one that he shares with other Muslims).
The Qur’an and Science
After saying that “The debate veered off to the topic of science and the Quran,” without pointing out that it was Osama who tried to get us lost in space here and that I was the one who had to insist that he find his way back to the subject we were supposed to be debating, Yahya takes issue with my backhanded dismissal of Osama’s irrelevant appeals to the Qur’ans supposed scientific insights.
Because Osama brought up science and alleged that the Qur’an reveals advanced knowledge of scientific matters, I pointed out that while it is not directly relevant to the subject of our debate, the Qur’an actually contains numerous scientific errors, even one of which is sufficient to refute the idea that the Qur’an is from God (S. 4:82).
In this connection I briefly pointed out two errors: 1) the Qur’anic teaching that shooting stars serve the purpose of keeping unwanted angels from prying into Allah’s secret counsel; and 2) the Qur’anic teaching that sperm originates between the backbone and the rib.
Yahya tries to respond to the first error by telling us: a) the shayatin/jinn are not angels; b) stars move very quickly; and c) “Anthony believes angels came down from Heaven and had sex with human women…”
My responses to these points are quick and easy: a) the jinn are a subset of angels (*, *); b) so what, the roadrunner also moves quickly, just ask Wile E. Coyote; and c) Christian and non-Christian scholars interpret Genesis 6 in many different ways (q.v. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 33ff.) and Yahya has no idea which view I take on the matter. As well, even if it were the case that I endorse the angelic interpretation of “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 the fact would remain that saying angels were able to take on human form in the past would supply no basis for the belief that shooting stars are a form of cosmic angel repellent.
Yahya’s response to the second Qur’anic error I mentioned was not any better. He first says I am relying on a “shoddy internet-hate site,” and then he turns around and posts a link to his own shoddy internet hate-site. I will let the reader compare what Yahya’s link says to what our “hate-site” says on the matter: Qur’an and Science.
On Wearing the Right Attire
Since there is no other place to really put it, I will conclude my response to Yahya’s miscellaneous nonsense with the following.
For no obvious reason Yahya includes a picture in his review of an Islamic T-Shirt that says “Keep Calm and Discover Islam.”
Since we are sporting our casual wear, here is a T-Shirt picture someone sent to me after my debate with Osama that is more relevant to the subject of the review. Those who watched one of Osama’s other debates that took place the day prior to my debate with him, i.e. the debate he did with Dr. Edward Dalcour, and heard Osama repeatedly refer to Spaghetti, the aroma of which was still in the air during our debate, will see the humor in it.
Yahya should really be embarrassed for the exceedingly terrible stuff he churns out in defense of Islam. I think Osama should tell Yahya that he can do a bad job all on his own.
There is a lot more to come. Stay tuned for part two…
There is a lot more to come. Stay tuned for part two…
Excellent response to bad its going to be wasted on the likes of Yahya Snow.
Be Calm (Be at Peace) - Discover Christianity
"Keep" calm - Discover Islam.
Make sense, how can anyone be at peace or calm, once they discover what Islam really is!
After reading this response, I'v realised that Yahya is as fool as Osama
Yahya Snow reminds me less of Osama and more of Ijaz Ahmed. They both know how to pack a whole lot of misinformation into a single shot e.g. constant misuse of logical fallacies, incoherent rambling, red herrings, strawmen etc.
Anyway no offense to Anthony but this post was a waste of time, only because you are addressing nothing of substance (due to Yahya Snow).
I think sometimes we all feel the inclination to defend ourselves from false charges, misinformation and make repeated corrections but I would be more selective in what you respond to. In the case of this review we have a classic case of all bark and no bite, which is standard par-ordinary for Mr Snow.
Thank you for that, DK. I was not going to respond for the very reason you mentioned, but in a moment of weakness I just caved in and wrote this out. I think after I finish my response I will let him be (unless he ever comes forward and accepts my standing debate challenges to him).
Do you know that you debated Yahya Snow and you did really poorly according to Yahya. Oh he has also debated Sam Shamoun too.
He is quite the debator lol
What if we consider the following:
Malak Yahweh is not a distinct entity but rather a corporeal manifestation in which Yahweh chose to temporarily embody for the purpose of communicating with humans. We cannot name the manifested form Yahweh because that form doesn't encompass all of God's attributes. In other words, Malak Yahweh is another way of saying “an appearance of Yahweh”.
Arrow said, "What if we consider the following:
Malak Yahweh is not a distinct entity but rather a corporeal manifestation in which Yahweh chose to temporarily embody for the purpose of communicating with humans. We cannot name the manifested form Yahweh because that form doesn't encompass all of God's attributes. In other words, Malak Yahweh is another way of saying “an appearance of Yahweh”."
What you're saying sounds like your advocating modalism. That's not supported by scripture.
I'm not "advocating" anything here. I'm just thinking. Why is it not supported by scripture?
"Why is it not supported by scripture?"
Even the term itself refutes Modalism. "Messenger OF YAHWEH" In other passages Yahweh SENDS this Messenger, this implies a DISTINCTION, Anthony has pointed out the ontological status of the Messenger is not defined by the term, but the distinction is most assuredly there.
For more on the distinction between the persons of Yahweh, I would recommend Anthony's owning/opening statement against Ijaz and his post(s) on Zechariah.
Where can I buy the t-shirt?
It is not supported by scripture because of texts such as Exodus 23:20-23 and Zechariah 1:12-14, where the Angel is distinguished from Yahweh and addresses and is addressed by Yahweh. So the Angel is Yahweh who is distinct from Yahweh.
Sam said, "It is not supported by scripture because of texts such as Exodus 23:20-23 and Zechariah 1:12-14, where the Angel is distinguished from Yahweh and addresses and is addressed by Yahweh. So the Angel is Yahweh who is distinct from Yahweh."
Yet I'm so glad you pondered that Arrow because I knew scripture didn't support it but the proof text I had weren't these.
I think Luke 3:21 also shows the trinity yet Sam's examples are probably better.
Ah okay. Thanks a lot Sam and Derek. You're right.
this is ridiculous u prople dont understand anything of islam, muslims dont hate cristans and jews the christans and jews hate muslims so they r the haters.
why dont u listen or understand.
yeish u should stop this debate its unresonable and ridiculous.
Rukiah Ali said, "this is ridiculous u prople dont understand anything of islam, muslims dont hate cristans and jews the christans and jews hate muslims so they r the haters."
"why dont u listen or understand."
"yeish u should stop this debate its unresonable and ridiculous."
Umm...the discussion turned to the bible and modalism. Islam wasn't mentioned in that particular discuss you commented on.
Maybe you should stop and read before you decide to post something absurd and interrupt a discussion.
Even if you didn't interrupt anything, it was still absurd. Christians and Jews don't go around beheading Muslims, or blowing them up, or raping their women/men, beating them up.
But still that had no place in this present conversation.
muslims dont. u do
i get beatan up
fiy i read more than u ever read.
ur going against an 11yr old how smart is that.
a 11 yr old claiming that he read more then all of us. kid its time you learn that when you want to support a position you are suppose to prove i with evidence because what you are doing is saying the legend of santa is real without any actual proof that he is. all you are doing is claiming something but failing to prove it.
as for the topic of this part we were pointing out why yahya answers was insubstantial with evidence. if that is what you find insulting then you have a lot of growing up to do
Rukiah you don't know what you're talking about, what we're talking about and if you are 11 years old you don't need to come on this board.
And it's 'FYI' not 'fiy'.
Now go tell your parents to take the laptop away from you...
I'm smart I out smarted an 12 yr old , an 38 yr old. FYI: I'm using an computer. I use it any time I want to. Its not my computer, its my moms computer. Fine the truth is I don't find it insutling , I just want to do something new dabating is really a grown uo thing. But ur right I need practice, I need to be educated I'm not redy yet.
IM NOT A HE IM A SHE I TOLD U THAT
I can not take you seriously we have asked again and again to prove why your muslim brother yayha was right but you have failed to prove any of it on "muhummed in the bible"
If you want to debate at least stick to the topic and stop going off topic again and again. the topic was about muslims claiming that muhummed was in the bible and we are pointing out why the muslims response was bad using what the muslim wrote and what the bible says .
now its your turn to prove where in the article taht it is ridiclous
"muslims dont. u do"
"i get beatan up"
My goodness! Rukiah did it! In two sentences she proved that the last thousands of terrorist attacks believed to be by Muslims (and claimed by many), that are well documented to be non-existent! She also proved that all the violent teachings of the Quaran and Hadiths don't exist! gone in a puff of logic! All because she says she got beaten up, that must mean there has never. before. been a terrorist attack by muslims! that must mean MUSLIMS are the real victims! Why did I not see it before!
(and in case Rukiah doesn't get it, I'm being sarcastic.)
Rukiah said, ', I just want to do something new dabating is really a grown uo thing. But ur right I need practice, I need to be educated I'm not redy yet.'
Then read comments but this type of engagement is disruptive. Besides that we're adults. You're a child and have no place posting here. You don't understand the topic we're talking about nor are and comments you make helpful to your cass or points.
We got enough problems with adults who attack and don't engage properly. We really don't need to deal with a child to.
Yeah I dont need to deal with U people any more There are no winning or loosing I proved my point.
I could tell Ur being sarcastic. Acctually in school yet my classmates treat me if i wasent a human beging. They look at me because im fully covered. Yet U people think it terorrizeing.
So u people r trying to tell others muslims are evil to keep people from the riligon? i read the comments it sounds like u people r arguing like children, really im serious some comment r kind of childish. Fine U want me to stick with the argument I will do my very best.
Guess what I read some of the comments and posts for at least 2 months Deleting is in everyone of them yet I read all of the posts and all of the comments. I figured out whats the point of dabating if we dont stop in the future ur looking at war between christans and muslims.
you still haven;t even read the article. the whole point was to respond on about muhummed in the bible that muslims claim and you still haven;t done anything
as for definition of troll this is all the definition of a internet troll you fit under it disruptive and off topic etc
Of course we're the ones arguing like children because we are pointing out how she is not presenting evidence (and using silly chewbacca arguments about how she gets beat up, as if that has anything to do with whether or not Islam is peaceful, or ad honims about how we hate Muslims because we think Islam is a bad religion (hint, we don't hate muslims at all, and I DARE her to show how we hate muslims. One of the main people here is a former Muslim in fact, and was friends with David when he was still a muslim) (that you repeat over and over) to back up your claims!
Rukiah said, 'Deleting is in everyone of them yet I read all of the posts and all of the comments.'
So not only are you a weird twisted little kid you're stalking me.
I post here a lot (though not on every single post you're wrong) but I'm an adult and I know the topic.
You are a child who does not know the topic at hand.
Rukiahi, a question: do you really think you have to defend your religion from the likes of me? Do you think you're even halfway qualified to defend it?
I will do whatever it takes to prove you people are wasting your time and breath on this ridiculous blog.
I was trying to say every post I read deleting was involved in the comments.
My classmates make fun of my hijab (my covering)I was the only kid that is fully covered yet I see kids wear belly shirts very short shorts yet they stare at me because I am fully covered. Every grade scince kindergarden I get beaten up. I always get pushed slapped, punched, kicked. BY a christan child a muslim child will never do that.
You guys are not very wise trust me I don't hate you but I think all of you are annoying.
NO YOU REPEAT OVER AND OVER TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.
"You guys are not very wise trust me I don't hate you but I think all of you are annoying."
"NO YOU REPEAT OVER AND OVER TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS."
See my last post, which I don't think Rukiah even read. Rukiah still refuses to present evidence (all I am repeating is a request for her to presernt counter evidence, I wouldn't have to if she actually would present evidence to prove what she's saying (that Islam is actually peaceful) and CONTINUES to use anecdotal red herring chewbacca defense arguments ("I get beat up" as if that has anything to do with whether or not whether or not Islam is peaceful, or if Deut refers to Mohammad) and then hypocritically uses the childish projection of accusing others of doing what she is doing.
"I will do whatever it takes to prove you people are wasting your time and breath on this ridiculous blog"
Does she really think this is "proof"? This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
We get it. Rukiah is an 11 year old. She make this abundantly clear in the way she acts, except I know 11 year olds who are much more mature than her.
(Also, posting a bunch of single sentence posts in a row is really annoying, please stop that.)
Rukiah said, "My classmates make fun of my hijab (my covering)I was the only kid that is fully covered yet I see kids wear belly shirts very short shorts yet they stare at me because I am fully covered. Every grade scince kindergarden I get beaten up. I always get pushed slapped, punched, kicked. BY a christan child a muslim child will never do that."
This is the real reason you come on here. It's not to 'dabate' it's because you're miserable, you get beat up alot and you want some place to unload your stress so you come on here and try to beat us up because we're faceless and you think we can't hit back.
Totally understand, but you also said this 'I always get pushed slapped, punched, kicked. BY a christan child a muslim child will never do that."
I was a 'christan' child. I never hit, slapped, punched or kicked anyone. Neither did my sister or brother.
You told all of us that real muslims aren't violent and would never hurt people but you're applying the christian label to kids who don't necessarily go to church or even understand Jesus said when someone hurts you, bless them and pray for them.
Sounds to me if they're kicking and hurting you, they're not acting christian and more likely than not are not christians because a real one won't do that.
Aside from that, are you reporting every incident to your teacher when it happens?
You need to do that, not come on here. I promise if you start taking telling your teacher every time it happens (provided your not trying to start a fight) it will end.
@Rukiah-I need to clarify something. When I said you're miserable I wasn't calling you names. I was stating an observation that based on what you recount to us, you're life is pretty much hell so you are miserable about it.
That's what I meant by miserable in case you were going to write a long comment calling me names.
emotions run high here and this not being face to face interactions don't help.
Well in new york in the bronx, christans curse out on muslims, some don't even know why they hat them. But you guys act like jews. My life is like hell. A real muslim would not hurt people. Yeish foolster is putting to much pressure on me. But hopefully my life will get better, hopefully I will live a happy life, non-stressful. I need less stress. Geting into this mess and you people give me more stress. I'm weak (physically)
"But you guys act like jews"
Yes, that's what was missing, some anti-semetism (funny how that keeps popping up with Muslims, most muslims I talk to end up being anti-semites, I can't imagine why! /sarc). I doubt when he says we're "acting like Jews" he doesn't mean it in a positive way.
I'm putting so much "pressure" on Rukiah and stressing her out because... I insist she present evidence? If being asked to present evidence stresses Rukiah out, she really needs to get off the internet.
And once again she talks about how Muslims in a certain place (New York) are harassed (as if this one case makes all cases of Muslims harassing non-muslims disappear), and claims Muslims would never be violent though she doesn't explain how Quaran 9:29 is being misunderstood by her fellow muslims (why isn't she telling her fellow muslims to stop misbehaving?), or perhaps she is indicating that we should ignore the mountains of evidence of Islamic terror. Instead she uses the "no true scottsman" fallacy. the problem is, she'd have to show how the Quoran doesn't preach open ended violence and subjegation, which she hasn't, she's only used so far emotional arguments (appeal to emotion fallacy).
"I'm weak (physically)"
Not just physically.
Rukiah said, "Well in new york in the bronx, christans curse out on muslims, some don't even know why they hat them. "
People curse out people, good, bad, indifferent, people. Quit labeling all people who do mean things as 'Christian' and the 'victims' as muslims.
There are plenty of muslims who do bad things and curse out christians simply because they are christian. When you pray fajr prayer you curse out christians the 'ones who went astray'...
"But you guys act like jews."
I thought we act like christans...
"My life is like hell."
I believe it but you also exacerbate the situation by coming on here, insulting us and then claiming victim status. I'm trying to be nice and sympathetic to you but you don't make it easy.
"A real muslim would not hurt people."
Real muslims are people too and hurt people everyday, some of them they love and others they don't.
"Yeish foolster is putting to much pressure on me. "
No he's not. He's engaging you in debate like you wanted to and said you could handle. Now you see why we told you you don't know what you're talking about.
You said you could do it and now that he is you want nothing to do with it.
"But hopefully my life will get better, hopefully I will live a happy life, non-stressful. I need less stress."
I hope you live a happy life. I hope you repent and believe the gospel and I see you in heaven one day. In the meantime I do wish you peace because I know what it's like to be in your shoes.
Really, I do. And I've never been muslim.
"Geting into this mess and you people give me more stress. I'm weak (physically)"
So the next time someone tells you you don't know what you're talking about, how about you just believe them and move on.
"you guys act like JEWs"
wow Rukiah you are obviously bought up with jewish bogeyman stories now. I don;t see jews treating me like crap the ones around me.
Also you are condemning allah now because remember he made us hate you according to the quran
*sigh* I really wish you'd stop posting contentless posts that just waste time.
ok what? ok, and "I apologize for my anti-semetic slur"? "ok I agree to for now on to stop using logical fallacies and argue like an adult"? or maybe "ok i'm not going to listen to you, and think this is the way to stop pointing out my immature behavior"?
Ok, you guys make no sense for blaming muslims when people like you pay muslims to do terrorist attacks.
And that acid attack, a muslim was paid to do that why would a muslim do something so random, they wouldn't. They get paid by someone like you. And you people proved you like to blame others but yourself for stuff like that. Muslims in America are poor.
Can you prove that? It sounds to me like you don't want a muslim to have done it, therefore he must have been paid off. This makes no logical sense.
Also, please stop the slanders. It makes you look pathetic and dishonest.
Because we call out the violence of the Quoran and point to how it's used, we are the people who are paying Muslims to do these things? Care to actually for once in your life and prove this? Perhaps in a court of law? You may one day have to prove it in court if you keep saying things like this, here in the west it's called slander
I am mor hounest then you ever be. Yes one of you pople did it. You know what else makes no logic sense you dont understand you are blaming mulims for being violent.
I see no evidence in that statement (the violent Muslims are all paid off to be violent by non-muslims), and yet you're more honest than I'll ever be! Thanks for proving my point.
Yes, we are blaming violent Muslims for being violent, and pointing out how they quote violent passages of the Quoran! The insanity! I notice you once again don't sho0w how they are being misquoted. Around and around we go again.
Post a Comment