Thursday, November 28, 2013

Ijaz Goes Bobbing for Apples and Ends Up Drowning in Three Inches of Water

After Bob Siegel debated Shadid Lewis on the reliability of the New Testament Ijaz Ahmed had some choice things to say about him, one of the more outrageous of which is that Bob is functionally retarded. Ijaz also made the following comment:

Bob Siegel is a Muslim hero. After his debate with Br. Shadid Lewis, there can be no doubt that Bob secretly works for Muslims. I say this because Bob seemed to offend, almost insult and argue against Christianity in last night’s debate. Not only did he not defend the reliability of the New Testament (as was the topic of focus), but he successfully argued against it, while embarrassing himself in one of the most absurd displays of immaturity I have ever been privy to witness.

Unfortunately for Bob, I have a strong feeling that he would now be the focus of many Muslim-Christian debates, because of his self refuting [sic] nature, it’s impossible that ANYONE debating him could actually lose. (Emphasis mine)

Ijaz concluded the above diatribe as follows:

Bob, you are the hero of Muslims everywhere. I pray that one day I do get to debate you, because you’d be THE EASIEST person to debate. I’m hoping that you do more debates with Muslims, especially focusing on the topic of Christianity, perhaps you’d bring more Christians to Islam than is possible – you’re a great spokesperson for Islam and we wouldn’t have it any other way. (Emphasis mine)

Unfortunately for Ijaz, his desire to debate "the ever-beatable Bob" became both a reality and a nightmare that he will not soon live down. Aside from some connection issues that came up from time to time that occasionally made it hard to understand what Ijaz was saying, the only downside is that the debate was only an hour long. Bob was dealing it to him so handily that I was left wishing it went on for another hour or two.

Anyone familiar with Ijaz knows how quick he usually is to put up debates and declare himself the winner, even when few others think he did well at all (though he usually tries to prop up his pap and drivel by claiming that Christians were flooding his inbox awarding him the laurel wreath). However, with respect to his debate with Bob, Ijaz still doesn’t have the debate up but instead has an excuse piece where he attempts to get his fan base to commiserate with him over the proceedings. No doubt now that I have drawn the debate to the attention of the readers on this blog Ijaz will quickly go into damage control mode and put the debate up. But as you will see when you listen to the debate this is a win-win situation since Muslims will see how Ijaz fares over against a man that is “the easiest person to debate.”

Here is a link to the debate that Ijaz doesn’t want you to hear:

Whichis More Reliable? The New Testament or the Koran?


As if he wanted to prove I am a better prophet than his own, Ijaz fulfilled my words to the letter by going into damage control mode. As a result of this post he was impelled to provide a link to his debate with Bob, which he claims was too poor in sound quality to post. While I grant that the sound quality was bad, it isn't bad at all points, and it isn't so bad that Ijaz's points aren't discernible.

One of the more humorous aspects of his reply is the idea that by providing a link here on AM to Bob's website where the debate is hosted I have created positive advertisement for Ijaz. But that is like saying a link to a local news report about someone finding cockroaches in their chili amounts to positive advertisement for a restaurant. Let's hope for the sake of Ijaz's local economy that he does not have designs on entering into the advertising field.

Another point of interest in Ijaz's latest reply is his admission, coupled with a good bit of lying, that he sat for hours on Paltalk with Christians "MALIGNING" Bob after his debate with Shadid. So there you have it, not only did Ijaz claim that Bob would be "the easiest person to debate" and that "it's impossible anyone debating him could actually lose," he now admits that he attacked and slandered BOB for hours on end. For this reason, it has to be all the more embarrassing that his own performance against Bob was so shoddy.

Although much more could have been said than Bob was able to say, and surely some of us would have answered some things differently, Bob's replies in the debate more than effectively countered Ijaz's queries about how textual scholars go about their work comparing and collating manuscripts to determine the original readings in cases of textual variants* as well as Ijaz's laughable argument that the final judgment makes God out to be a mass murderer.

As for Ijaz's comment that Zechariah 12:10 is not a prophecy about the death of Christ, which has absolutely nothing to do with Ijaz's stunning defeat at the hands of Bob, the fact is that Ijaz was so thoroughly exposed on this issue that he had to take down an exchange that took place between us on Facebook. One of the more notable aspects of this discussion was Ijaz pretending to know Hebrew and claiming that he was working directly from NA27. I kid you not. He was actually claiming to be reading the Hebrew of Zechariah from a text-critical edition of the Greek NT. Even people who don't know Hebrew can recognize on sight the difference between Hebrew and Greek.

This is why, as I have said many times over, Ijaz is, as a rule, this response being a rare exception, so easily ignored.

*I am not suggesting that Bob used these words, but that this is what Bob was alluding to when he said Christians look to all the available manuscripts we have to date. Given the time constraints and the lack of any serious challenge to this point from Ijaz, these remarks were certainly sufficient.


Answering Judaism said...

How about the kid actually goes onto the podium with Bob and debate him?

Anonymous said...

Ugh, Ijaz's sound quality was atrocious. Maybe allah is subtly trying to tell him something?

Also, he shows a piss-poor of knowledge of recorded history when he claims that christians and jews in Iberia willingly converted to islam.

Radical Moderate said...

Ijaz is so scholarly he invited Bob to debate on Paltalk lol

Sam said...

I am going to repost my comments from a previous thread here for all to see what kind of despicable and lowly character this Muhammadan truly is.

I see that the Muhammadan Ijaz tried to do a hit and run, but not before Anthony pwned him to the shame of that deceptive Muhammadan.

And speaking about deception, Ijaz lied through his teeth in his debate when he claimed that the hadith which says that ar-Rahman created Adam in his image means that his false god created Adam in Adam's image. Here is a lengthy quote from another Muhammad which exposes and shames this deceiver for thinking he could get away with such lies:

Likewise, we affirm that, “Allah created Adam in His image.”21 This hadith was collected by Ahmad bin Hanbal and others.

In another narration, “[…] in the image of ar-Rahman.”22

As collected by ad-Daraqutni, Abu Bakr an-Najjad23, Abu ‘Abdullah bin Battah24, and others. (Kitab al-I’tiqad: By Imam Abu al-Husain Muhammad bin al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra’ al-Hanbali, verification of the text and commentary by Shaikh Muhammad bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Khumaiyis (Associate Professor at Muhammad bin Sa’ud University), translated by Amr bin Jalal Abualrub [Madinah Publishers and Distributors, First edition 2012], pp. 21-22)

21 Collected by Ahmad in, Musnad Abu Hurairah, 14/45, hadith 8291, by al-Bukhari in, Kitab al-Isti’than, 4/135, hadith number 6227, Abdullah bin Ahmad said, “It was written in the books of my father (Ahmad bin Hanbal), ‘And his height was 60 cubits’, but I am not sure if he narrated it to us or not.” This addition is also found in al-Bukhari’s Sahih.

Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Tayimiyyah said, “There was no dispute among the Salaf in the first three generations that the pronoun is referenced to Allah as has been elaborated in many different ways from the Sahabah, and the context of all the ahadith point to that.” (Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, with verification by Dr. ‘Abd ar-Rahman al-Yahya, 2/356) Ahl as-Sunnah affirm Allah’s attribute of having an Image and believe in it; they profess that it should be accepted as is, without denying, altering or describing it, and without likening it to His creation. Al-Aajurri said, after narrating the hadith of the image, “This is from the traditions that Muslims are obligated to believe in, without saying, how, or why. Rather, it is accepted with submission and belief that it is true, and by refraining from trying to explain it, as has been said by the Muslim Imams who passed.” (Ash-Shari’ah, by al-Aajurri, 2/106)

Imam Ahmad spoke on this topic and said about the hadith of the image, “We accept the hadith as is [without explaining its essence].” Because of that, Imam Ahmad used to rebuke those who interpret the hadith of the Image and who ascribe the pronoun to other than Allah. He said in the narration of Abu Talib, “Whoever says that Allah created Adam in Adam’s shape is a Jahmi, because what shape did Adam have before he was created?” (Ibtal at-Ta’wilat, 1/75). This is a warning from Imam Ahmad, that whoever interprets the pronoun to be other than referring to Allah will have followed the path of the Jahmiyyah. Ibn Qutaibah said, “As I see it, and Allah knows best, is that to have an image is not stranger than having two hands, fingers and eyes, but these attributes are familiar because they were mentioned in the Qur’an, unlike the image which is unfamiliar because it was not mentioned in the Qur’an [but only mentioned in the ahadith]. However, we believe in both [types of report], we do not ascribe any specific essence or resemblance to these attribute[sic].” (Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, pg. 261)

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

Continued from the previous post.

Here is the rest of the quote:

22 Also collected by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in, as-Sunnah, 2/229, al-Baihaqi in, al-Asma’ wa as-Sifat, pg. 371, Ibn Khuzaimah, at-Tawhid, hadith number 41, 1/85, al-Ajurri in, ash-Shari’ah, pg. 315.

Ibn Hajar said in, al-Fat-h, 5/183, “Al-Maziri and those who followed him have rejected the authenticity of this addition, meaning, ‘On the image of ar-Rahman’; since what has been established in most of the hadith‘s chains of transmission is, ‘Allah created Adam in His shape.’, Then he said, ‘If it is authentic, then it is taken in a way that befits Allah’s majesty.”

[Ibn Hajar continued by saying], “I say: the addition was collected by Ibn Abi ‘Asim in, as-Sunnah, as well as at-Tabarani, with a chain of narration leading through Ibn ‘Umar, and the narrators are all trustworthy. Ibn Abi ‘Asim also collected it using the chain of narration passing through Abu Yunus from Abu Hurairah, with a wording which refutes al-Maziri’s opinion [that the word, ‘Ar-Rahman’ is not established in the hadith]. It says, ‘Whoever fights should avoid [hitting] the face, because man’s image in ar-Rahman’s image.’ Is-haq al-Kawsaj said, “I heard Ahmad say, ‘This hadith is authentic.’ [My father said], ‘Such a person has lied, and this is the exact statement that the Jahmiyyah said.’” (al-Fat-h, 5/183)

23 He is the Imam, the hadith scholar, the jurist, the Mufti, the Shaikh of ‘Iraq, Abu Bakr, Ahmad bin Salman bin alHasan bin Isra’il al-Baghdadi al-Hanbali an-Najjad. He was born in 253 Hijri and died in the year 348 Hijri. Refer to, as-Siyar, 15/502, and Mukhtasar as-Siyar, 2/125, number 3158.

24 He is the Imam, the role model, the worshipper of Allah, the hadith scholar, the Shaikh of ‘Iraq, Abu Abdullah, ‘Ubaidullah bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Hamdan al-‘Akbari al-Hanbali, also known as, Ibn Battah. He died the year 387 Hijri. Refer to, Siyaru A’lam an-Nubalaa, 16/529, number 389. (Ibid., pp. 21-23)

And here is a link to a clip of Hamza Yusuf admitting that this is the majority view of Muslim scholars throughout the ages:

Lord willing, there will be more to come for this deceptive Muhammadan who thinks he will can lie like his prophet did and get away with it.

Zack_Tiang said...

I've seen and exchanged words with Ijaz in FB groups... and know fairly well just how 'well' Ijaz debates. said...

Hi Anthony, thanks for errr, 'ignoring me'? Thanks for the free advertisement and promotion to a Christian audience, saved me a few bucks from Facebook ads.

Anthony Rogers said...


After people hear your debate with Bob they are likely only to visit your pages in the hopes of having another laugh at your expense.

I am happy to have made this unusual exception to ignoring you in order to draw attention to this event.

Who knows? Maybe in another year I will make another exception and mention you again. Until then, continue to be irrelevant and pay people to give you attention.

Anonymous said...

For the record, I'd like to make two things very clear:

1) - I never claimed what Ijaz's claims, which is that the audio is so bad that one can understand him. If that were the case, not only i would have stated so in my post, but also i wouldn't have been able to call him out on his piss-poor knowledge of recorded history regarding the conversion of jews and christians in Iberia, would i? The sound quality on his end is atrocious but a bit of time, effort and use of the rewind button work wonders.

2) - I did not claim to speak for anyone else. I think this is an important point and i want to drive it home because Ijaz says on his website "read the comments on Anthony’s very own post that claim what I claim" followed by a screencap of my post . Like i said in 1), i do not claim what Ijaz claims, and i'm the only one mentioning the atrocious sound coming form Ijaz's end (at least as of the time this post is being written), so i don't see how he came to the conclusion that there were several people agreeing with what he claims.

Anonymous said...

@calling christians
lol i already picked up your mis representation of radical moderate and others. lol

radical said dunn was a liberal not james white etc. you chucked them all into once sentence.

also love seeing you say samuel green answered only 1/3 of your question when it was other way around .

one goes to question how much misrepresentation you can do in just one post

ignatius said...

I had problems understanding Ijaz due to the weak connection and his sometimes indistinct pronunciation, but it does seem that Bob Siegel bested him.

I was, however, surprised that Bob cited the Josephus passage (Antiquities XVIII,3,3), which basically professes Jesus's Messiahship and divinity. In my circle, no one regards this passage as reliable, but rather as having been tampered with by a Christian. Jews did not write about Jesus like that unless they came to faith in Him, something which Josephus never did.

There is a 10th century text by Agapius which has this passage, translated into Arabic, containing significant differences from the preserved Greek, and its sense is probably closer to what Josephus actually wrote, though I must emphasize that this is not the final word on the subject. I got this from Eusebius: The Church History (Translation and commentary by Paul L. Maier), pp. 336-38 (Appendix 1), but one could also Google "Schlomo Pines" "Agapius" to find discussions of it.

Bob can use Josephus for arguing that Jesus is a historical person who was crucified, but he should not assert that Josephus considered Jesus to be the Messiah.

Anthony Rogers said...

Extemista and Aaron, thanks for pointing out more misrepresentations on Ijaz's part. Don't be surprised: for him it is a way of life. He follows Muhammad. Need I say more?

Ignatius, that is one of the points I would have answered differently. In fact, to see how the scholarly discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum actually comes back to haunt Muslims, see my responses to Yahya Snow:

A Muslim Dawagandist Refutes the Qur'an with the Help of Josephus - Parts 1 and 2

Anthony Rogers said...

BTW, if you haven't noticed, there is an update on the main page of this post.

Radical Moderate said...

Do to other comments on this blog I decided to jump into the sewer and visit Ijaz blog.

People I have said it before and I will say it again. Ijaz really does not need to debate, discuss, or interact with Christians. It really doesn't matter what you say to him, he will just make up your end of the conversation and reply to what you did not say, as if you actually did say what comes out of his perverse mind.

Case in point. Ijaz wrote this about me...

"If this Christian is willing to be honest, he’d have to then explain how in his 15 line quasi review he proudly declared I quoted many liberal scholars, James Dunn, James White and Athanasius. Your own words against me, are self contradictory."

Now anyone who actually read my brief review of his debate with Samuel Green would know that in no way did I even imply that Dr White or Athanasius were or are liberal scholars. Here is what I actually wrote...

"Moving on, Ijaz then continues to very rapidly ramble on quoting various people from Dr White to Athanasius on the complexity of the nature of God and the incarnation. Of corse know Muslim apologist would be worth his salt if he did not quote liberal scholars like Jimmy Dunn. On this point Ijaz did not disappoint. "

So either he has a serious reading comprehension problem, or he is being willfully dishonest, or as we call it on Paltalk, just telling another Ijaz.

I find it funny that he brags that his site is so popular, but just looking around I noticed that in every post I clicked on, he only has 4 people who took the time to either rate his blog posts. On some of them I noticed that he had one 4 star and two people who gave him one star.

I also noticed that the video's he posts on his blog and on youtube only have a few hundred views, even though some of them have been up for several months. He's a joke, only because he trys to be serious and people laugh at him. And when he tries to be funny he's not lol.

Radical Moderate said...

I'm going to make a few more comments on what Ijaz wrote...

"This same hater boasted that I misused the fallacy of confirmation bias, to the contrary, as many viewers of the debate have indicated within the Paltalk room itself, my opening statement and argument was spot on, Samuel did not present any historical, philosophical or rational evidences for his position, he merely said this is what my God in the scripture I believe in said, therefore the incarnation is true. I call upon any Christian to demonstrate that Pastor Samuel did not do this."

My response:

So Sam Green goes to Gods prophets to understand God and Ijaz calls this confirmation bias. Ijaz also wants Sam Green to ignore what the prophets say and provide some kind of philosophical evidence. I find this funny (like I said he is funnies when he is trying to be serious) do to the fact that during his debate with CL I asked him the following question.

"Ijaz you said you take something called the middle ground approach, can you explain what that means"

His response word to the effect of "What ever agrees with the quran I accept and what ever disagree's with the quran I reject."

Now that is beyond confirmation bias that is just what are the words I'm looking for ohh I know "SILLY".

So Ijaz confuses his view that the quran is right even when it is proven wrong, with the Christian approach that in-spite of what we believe, in-spite of what are presuppositions are, it is the word of God that he spoke to his prophets that defines our reality.

So for the Quran to be true then the prophets must be false, since it is the prophets that taught what God taught them in regards to the incarnation.

Radical Moderate said...

One more comment on Ijaz.

I wont tell you all to ignore him, I will just let Ijaz behavior speak for itself. If you think it is edifying to Christ to engage such a dishonest person then more power to you. As far as I'm concerned I just ignore him when ever I see him. That way he doesn't bother me.

I suppose for entertainment value it might be fun to see him live debate in person. I would pay a dollar to see Anthony or Sam or CL or Samuel Green wallop him on stage. Or even have him video call on ABN.

Other then that Osama Abdulla or Nadir Achmed, or even Estasham would be a better debate opponet then Ijaz. At least they pretend to try to be honest.

ignatius said...

Good links, Anthony. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

i disagree about ijaz being better then nadir at least calling stays on topic. but then again it doesn;t state much because i put him on the level of osama, because he refuses to apologize for misrepresentation and lies just like Osama.

then again i consider both of them have some attention seeking problem, only consolidation is both provide me with a good laugh.

Radical Moderate said...

Correction, when I wrote...

"I suppose for entertainment value it might be fun to see him live debate in person. I would pay a dollar to see Anthony or Sam or CL or Samuel Green wallop him on stage. Or even have him video call on ABN."

Clarification, in no way am I suggesting that anyone pay Ijaz, or pay for him to travel to the US or anywhere else to debate. If MDI wants him to be on their payroll they should pay his expense to travel and debate, or pay Christians to travel to debate him.

Tom said...

I cant believe we would ever want to consider to debate this pathological liar, ljaz!
Really, this guy just makes wild sweeping assertions.

"Where are the notes/manuscripts from 610AD"?

koran, is a "perfectly" adulterated, twisted, satan inspired, perversion of the Old Testament, & it has clearly rejected the New Testament, as the New Testament is THE foundation for man's redemption!
Would satan want to see man redeemed?

Radical Moderate said...


Well maybe MDI will put up the cash for Ijaz to come to the states to debate in person. Or maybe he can skype into ABN for a debate.

Either way it would be a riot.

Anonymous said...

Ijaz has proven to be just another lying windbag who has helped to expose the Quran and Islam for what they really are; tools of deception in the service of evil.

Radical Moderate said...

Interesting interaction with Ijaz last night. I confronted him on his brazen misrepresentation of what I wrote on a previous blog comment.

CallingChristians: Don't see what I misinterpreted, just pointed out your inconsistencies, as usual.

Radical Moderate: well 1. I did not call James white a liberal

CallingChristians: 1. I didn't either.

Radical Moderate: I called Jimmy Dunn a liberal

Radical Moderate: but hey

Radical Moderate: what are facts to you

CallingChristians: liberals, james white

CallingChristians: Your friends need to google what a comma is.

My Response:
At this point I thought he was talking about the sentence he wrote. He even partially quotes from it.

"he proudly declared I quoted many liberal scholars, James Dunn, James White and Athanasius."

He continues and by below it would appear that he is again referring to his sentence.

CallingChristians: It might help.

CallingChristians: I didn't either.

CallingChristians: Go google with a comma is.

Radical Moderate: I called Jimmy Dunn a liberal

Radical Moderate: lol

CallingChristians: I laughed when I saw those remarks.

CallingChristians: I know you called James Dunn a lib, I said so on the post....

CallingChristians: You're a bit slow tonight...

Radical Moderate: If this Christian is willing to be honest, he’d have to then explain how in his 15 line quasi review he proudly declared I quoted many liberal scholars, James Dunn, James White and Athanasius.
Radical Moderate: first I know where said Many

CallingChristians: liberal scholars, (COMMA), james white

If he is referring to his sentence then it would appear that he needs to look up what a comma is.

From grammar.ccc
"Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "

So since he wrote,

"quoted many liberal scholars, James Dunn, James White and Athanasius." (I will point out that no where did I write "MANY liberal scholars)

And since one of the reasons to use a comma is to separate elements in a list, and since that list started out with liberal scholars and he included not only Jimmy Dunn, but James White, and Athanasious in that list.

Any reading of his sentence would mean that he is including James White and Athanasious in this list of many liberal scholars.

If this is not the case then how are my words "self contradictory."?

Notice he first wrote he did not imply James White was a liberal scholar. If this is the case then again I ask what is "self contradictory" in my sentence?

He then continues to misrepresent what I was writing in our brief interaction and then reverts to his natural state of name calling and insulting.

Radical Moderate: and second you need to understand english grammer

CallingChristians: *Grammar

Radical Moderate: no
Radical Moderate: sorry

CallingChristians: *no

Radical Moderate: liberal schollars followed by the names

CallingChristians: Go Google what a comma is.

Radical Moderate: points to those are the liberal scholars

CallingChristians: looool, athanasius is a liberal scholar according to u now?

CallingChristians: loooooooooooooooool

Radical Moderate: really man your not that bright

CallingChristians: oh God

CallingChristians: you are dumber than you look

CallingChristians: you can't be serious

CallingChristians: are you 5 years old?
CallingChristians: Oh God
CallingChristians: sorry
CallingChristians: I'm laughing
CallingChristians: I can't do this
CallingChristians: I just can't
CallingChristians: Oh God

Radical Moderate: see just as I said

Radical Moderate: yuo don't need me here to have a conversation with me

Radical Moderate: you will just make up my end of the conversation and then reply to something I did not say

CallingChristians is now offline.
Messages will be delivered when they sign on to Paltalk.

And that was that. said...

Hi Anthony, I'm sure lying is a sin, not sure if it's okay in your religion, see my update here:

sla said...

In the begining of the debate Bob said..."Quran was not written down during the prophets time" , he got his facts wrong . All Muslim scholars and an overwhelming majority of non-Muslim scholars say the Quran was written during the time of Prophet. Plus , the theologically driven additions and deletions which are found in the Bible are absent from the Quran , a fact again attested by non-Muslim scholars.

Sam said...

SLA, Bob was right on the money and it is you and your so-called scholars that don't have a clue what you are talking about. Here is the proof:

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "HOW CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WHICH ALLAH'S APOSTLE DID NOT DO?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book)." BY ALLAH IF THEY HAD ORDERED ME TO SHIFT ONE OF THE MOUNTAINS, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HEAVIER FOR ME THAN THIS ORDERING ME TO COLLECT THE QU'RAN. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "HOW WILL YOU DO SOMETHING WHICH ALLAH'S APOSTLE DID NOT DO?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I STARTED LOOKING FOR THE QUR'AN AND COLLECTING IT FROM (what was written on) PALMED STALKS, THIN WHITE STONES AND ALSO FROM THE MEN WHO KNEW IT BY HEART, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is: 'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty..(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Voleum 6, Book 61, Number 509:

Abu Bakr's and Zaid's initial response shows that the Quran had not been written down and collected together in one codex during Muhammad's lifetime. Moreover, Zaid's statement that it would have been easier for him to shift through one of the mountains along with the fact that he had to go around gathering the Quran from various people and items further prove that the Quran had not been written down in one volume during Muhammad's time. After all, there would be no need to look for it in all these various places when all Zaid had to do was simply consult the volume or Quranic codex that had been compiled by Muhammad himself.

Therefore, Bob Siegal was right and you and your scholars are wrong.

Radical Moderate said...

oh no poor Ijaz is getting picked on awwwww.

For someone who religion forbids alcohol Ijaz sure does seem to wine alot.

Anonymous said...

sla said,

"Plus , the theologically driven additions and deletions which are found in the Bible are absent from the Quran , a fact again attested by non-Muslim scholars."

"theologically driven additions and deletions" does not automatically mean that the Quran is true and that the Bible is false, since the overall message of the Bible has not been altered (although one should steer clear of the recent New World Translation/Abomination).

Any claims made by Islam concerning the corruption of the original Scriptures are easily destroyed by the Dead Sea Scrolls (which existed long before the Quran), and which show that what we have in the Old Testament (which is extensively quoted in the New Testament) is, in its overall message, the pure and true inspired word of the Holy Spirit, the author of the Scriptures.

Obviously, those who compiled the Quran were not aware of the existence and future discovery (1947) of the Dead Sea Scrolls otherwise they might have written it differently. But as it stands, in this point alone, the Quran has been caught lying through its teeth and is really not worth the paper that it is written on, except, as a very good example of how the Devil is able to deceive whole nations with his lies.

Anonymous said...

@ calling
it was me who picked it up the misrepresentation in the first place.

anyone can read and work it out, apparently Calling you are here just to save face

Anthony Rogers said...


Before I reply to your latest whine-fest, would you please clarify something for me?

You said:

"I call upon Anthony to reproduce that alleged conversation in which I supposedly referred to the NA27 as a Hebrew text, as I remember clearly, Psalm 63:11 says if you swear by the Lord and are honest, you will not be silent about your claims. Therefore I call upon Anthony to swear by the Lord of the Old Testament, by the command in psalm 63:11 and then to repeat that inane claim. As I told him, I had in my possession NA 27. I had it from BBW7 in which BBW also allowed me to see the Hebrew to the Old Testament MSS quite easily in addition to the GNT of NA27."

Here is what I would like you to comment on:

1. First you say this was an "alleged" conversation, and then you go on to give your revisionist version of what took place in this "alleged" conversation. So, did we have a conversation on the Hebrew text of Zechariah 12:10 or am I only "alleging" that we had one and there is no truth to it?

[nb: I am not asking you here to tell us whether you said what I claimed or not, I am only asking you to answer directly whether we had such a conversation.]

2. You asked me to reproduce this conversation as if you did not copy it from our FB discussion and put it up on your website only to take it down once I pointed out to your chagrin that you were trying to argue the Hebrew text of NA26 and BHS, which you said are both identical to the MT, when the former is not even a Hebrew text. Based on this, here are my questions:

Are you denying that you once had this conversation up on your website?

If you deny that it was ever on your site, then the following question is mute. But if you can be honest for a minute and admit that it was, then I would also like you to reply to the following:

If it was on your website, then where did it go and why did you take it down if I am not telling the truth? Why were you so embarrassed that you felt the need to take it down?

I am very much looking forward to your clarification of these points. Once you fess up (or down), I will happily respond to the rest of your meanderings.

TAREK said...

Hello brethren!
To said...

Hi Anthony, I'm sure lying is a sin, not sure if it's okay in your religion, see my update here:

This guy must be a joker.By your reasoning you have just comdemned your prophet and Allah.What is the meaning of surat 3 aya 28?
I am sure you do not know your facts.
Let me go to bed. I do not want to stay up for a joker.

Ijaz Ahmad said...

Hi Anthony,

I'm not one for straw men, so would you kindly provide the time stamp in Bob's recording, or would you prefer we switch topics to something unrelated to my show with Bob - your Zechariah argument?

Let me know which you prefer, thanks.

Radical Moderate said...

Anthony Rogers,

I seriously doubt that Ijaz will have the "testicular fortitude" to answer your questions. LOL

Radical Moderate said...

Anthony Rogers,

Just as I predicted Ijaz the whiner does not have the testicular fortitude to answer your questions.

Anthony Rogers said...


As you can see, he is running for the hills.

He brought up the issue and now he calls it a strawman. And in typical Ijaz fashion he blames me for HIS strawman. You judt can't make this stuff up. Ijaz is a consumate liar.

Ijaz, your silence speaks volumes. As yhe Psalmist said: Those who worship false gods and mute idols will end up like them.

Anthony Rogers said...


Judt = just

Consumate = consummate

Ijaz Ahmad said...

Hi Anthony.

Not sure what I lied about, I asked you to qualify your erratic statements about my performance with Bob and you responded on a complete 180 change of topic.

As for integrity, atleast this Christian had the honesty to speak the truth about Bob's performance, my performance and your review:

Ijaz Ahmad said...

Hi Anthony,

Not sure how I'm silent, I responded to you.

On another note, when we spoke of BBW, I spoke of NA27, not 26, BBW7 comes with NA27 and at that time news of NA28's release was just about surfacing.

I haven't gotten it as yet, but I am told they removed the colophon notes on variants, which to me is odd because when practising verbal criticism, it's important to have a list of variants amongst the MSS to contrast and compare.

In any case, when will you be giving me that time stamp and what words do you have for your Christian brethren who condemned your actions as dishonest and reprehensible?

You should really invest in BBW8, I think if you sign up for SBL's membership, you get a 15% discount on Logos items, just a heads up.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ijaz said: "Not sure what I lied about, I asked you to qualify your erratic statements about my performance with Bob and you responded on a complete 180 change of topic."

You brought up Zechariah 12, so if that is a "complete 180 change of topic" then it is one of which YOU are guilty.

Ijaz said: "As for integrity, atleast this Christian had the honesty to speak the truth about Bob's performance, my performance and your review…"

First, I did not give a review, I simply stated that I am persuaded that Bob did a MUCH better job than you did. Others who have commented here have agreed with that overall assessment. Only your unnamed "Christian" reviewer thinks otherwise, and that mostly for reasons of what he suspected was lacking in Bob's knowledge bank rather than on the basis of what was actually said. He can question all he wants whether Bob would have been able to back up certain points if further challenged on them, but the fact is it is quite irrelevant whether he would have been able to further defend them or not since he was NOT so challenged. Fault yours.

Second, this "Christian," let's call him Diotrephes, obviously wasn't confident enough in the validity of his assessment since he did not append his name to it. If he won't stand by it, then why should I or anyone else be impressed with it?

Third, the fact that no name is appended to it not only makes it virtually worthless as far as counting as a Christian testimony contrary to my own, but it raises the question whether it was actually written by a Christian rather than by you or one of your minions.

Fourth, this Diotrephes who came to your aid over against me was not impressed with Bob OR with YOU. In fact, in his view the debate was a stalemate. But you said that Bob is functionally retarded and that anyone could beat him in a debate. How unfortunate for you that you ended up being equally matched by someone who is functionally retarded according to my "friend", or, better yet, your akhi.

Finally, to your "Christian" friend, if he even exists, in the future he is invited to contact me if he is really interested in helping me "do better than that." I have no respect for someone who is so unwise and undiscerning that he would aid and abet you in your canon-ball run from God and pretend he is doing me or more importantly the gospel a service. Also, I am singularly unimpressed by anyone who is impressed with Ijaz. I really find it hard to believe that a "Reformed" Christian who is a "friend" of mine could possibly be impressed by you. Also, I think he should tell everyone his name so that it will be on record for the future if (God forbid) he ever forsakes Christ for Muhammad. That way everyone will know to be wary of him in the present and not be surprised in the future if his left foot leaves our camp to join his right foot which is already in yours.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ijaz said:

"Not sure how I'm silent, I responded to you."

No you didn't. This is the first post of yours since I asked the questions. Quit dodging since it has everyone wondering why you are worried about answering.

Ijaz said: "On another note, when we spoke of BBW, I spoke of NA27, not 26, BBW7 comes with NA27 and at that time news of NA28's release was just about surfacing."

Thanks for the comment since it is going to come back to haunt you in the near future. For now, is this an admission that such a conversation once appeared on your website? And if so, why did you take it down and why are you asking me to reproduce it as if it never existed?

Ijaz said: "In any case, when will you be giving me that time stamp and what words do you have for your Christian brethren who condemned your actions as dishonest and reprehensible?"

First, you didn't quote my "brethren" (plural), you gave a review by a single unnamed person who claims to be a friend. All I have to say to your akhi is to go kiss someone else on the cheek and don't forget to pick up your silver coins on the way out.

Second, as you were already told, I am chomping at the bit to reply to your recent moanings, but first you need to clarify your lies as I requested. It makes little sense for me to reply to something you are only going to say you never meant. So quit running and 'splain yo'self.

Ijaz Ahmad said...

Hi Anthony,

I'm not sure whether to laugh at your hypocrisy or not, but if 'not appending a name' to anything, is reason to discredit it, how am I to accept:

1. Any of the comments on your website, none of them append their real names to anything.

2. Believe your views when you stated: "I simply stated that I am persuaded that Bob did a MUCH better job than you did", persuaded on the basis on: " I was busy working and have not yet heard the debate, the feedback I have received...", on persons who are afraid to append their names.

Seems like according to your own criteria and reasoning, your very opinion is as you put it, " I was busy working and have not yet heard the debate, the feedback I have received".

See Anthony, I guess you truly cannot be consistent....all I had to do was use your own words against you.

Now seeing as you admitted to not listening to the debate, formed an opinion based on no name Christians who are afraid to attach their names to their reviews or statements, your opinion is virtually worthless.

Ijaz Ahmad said...

Hi Anthony,

I'm waiting for that time stamp. I've come to realise that you're stalling quite a lot when it comes to answering questions, but seem to demand that I respond to yours.

It doesn't really work that way, I think it's cute that you're willing to lie for Bob, just to 'discredit' me, I understand that the chains of the cross burden you with this attitude, so it really doesn't affect me.

We're all waiting to see if you can substantiate your claims, but as we both know, you're not going to do so. I don't know much about silver coins Mr. Rogers, or kissing an 'akhi', you seem to have a solid take on it though - glad you possess such inclinations, it explains a lot. But hey, I don't judge, to each his own.

sla said...

Sam ,you should at-least read first what you are quoting before doing so .The narration what you have quoted says exactly what i said before that the Quran was written down during the time of Prophet himself . I think the problem is you are not aware of the Arabic word which is used here. The word used is 'jama' , which means the Quran was not collected under one cover in Prophets time , as the Prophet was continuously receiving the revelations .The narration does not say the Quran was 'written' after the Prophet.

Add to it , the narration shows 2 more striking things
1)It shows the sincerity of the Muslims who are reluctant to bring the Quran together under one cover , as it was not done by the Prophet . Such people can never add or subtract from the Quran , a thing frequently seen in the history of the Bible
2) The other thing which the narration shows is every verse in the Quran has 3 witnesses ,1 written and 2 oral .It shows the fortified and through way in which the Quran was compiled , in comparison the Bible just fades into pale.

Radical Moderate said...

The best that Ijaz could do against someone he said was "functionally" "retarded" and "easily beatable" is a draw. What a shame Ijaz was not evenly matched.

Anthony Rogers said...

Ijaz, your 1st point compares apples and oranges.

Your 2nd point combines my comment about how much better Bob did than you with another comment about not having heard the debate with Samuel. So I heard first hand Bob take you to task. I have also long since listened to your debate with Samuel. Nice attempt at obfuscation but once again you have been caught in an attempt to misrepresent someone: this time by pretending that two unrelated comments were about the same thing. NOT.

More to come later...

Radical Moderate said...

To the unnamed Christian who is an ally of Ijaz. I would just like to point out to you what your "friend" has thus far done on his and on this blog.

On his blog he misrepresented my comments by directly implying that I believed that Dr James White was a liberal scholar.

On this blog he has misrepresented Anthony Rogers by stating...

"persuaded on the basis on: " I was busy working and have not yet heard the debate, the feedback I have received...", on persons who are afraid to append their names."

Anyone who has read the comments on this blog knows that Anthony Rogers made that comment on a entirely different thread about an entirely different debate.

Yet Ijaz now on this thread uses Anthony Rogers comment about Ijaz's debate with Samuel Green which was made over a week ago. As if somehow to say that Anthony Rogers did not listen to Ijaz's debate with Bob.

Here is a link to the thread about Samual Greens debate where Anthony Rogers made the comment that he had not yet listened to THAT DEBATE.

He has on numereous occasions slandered myself, Anthony Rogers, Sam Shamoun and others.

On one occasion he wrote that I and those mentioned above threatened to RAPE HIM. He has written that I threatened to Stab him and kill his family, he manupluated an audio recording of me to some how say I was anti Semitic. All these things are well documented.

It has been said by a few people who work in the field of psychology that Ijaz demonstrates sociopathic traits. He is manipulative, deceitful, shows no sign of remorse or regret when he is caught in his lies.

You wrote in your debate review, "I must speak on the issue of Christians leveling ad hominem attacks against Ijaz in their reviews of his debates...However, some of the statements that are being made against him are simply unwarranted"

My question for you is can you give us an example of where anyone made an ad hom attack or any statement that was unwarranted?

How many times does someone have to lie to you and lie about you, before you call him a liar?

So Ijaz Ahmed's Christian Friend and Ally, if you do in fact exist, I suggest you find a new friend.

As my father used to tell me "Show me your friends and I will show you who you are.

Are you a liar, do you misrepresent others, do you slander Christians as well? Is Ijaz really who you are?

Anonymous said...

sla said,

“The other thing which the narration shows is every verse in the Quran has 3 witnesses ,1 written and 2 oral .It shows the fortified and through way in which the Quran was compiled , in comparison the Bible just fades into pale.”

Witnesses to what, a lot of lies? Obviously these witnesses were either deceived or were false witnesses.

If the Bible is “pale” then the Quran is even paler since it is full of misappropriated and distorted doctrine from the original Scriptures, which, in their overall doctrine and message, are found preserved in the Bible (Any variants over time including the different spelling of words and changes in word order or ‘correcting grammar’ do not affect the overall message given by the Holy Spirit).

Radical Moderate said...

To the Christian, Ally of Ijaz. I forgot to mention how Ijaz deliberately misrepresented Brother Greens comment on this blog. This is what Pastor Green wrote...

"Yes, I thought I gave a good opening presentation but did not answer about 1/3 of Ijaz's issues well. "

Your friend and ally misquotes and misrepresents what Brother Green said when he writes...

"He didn’t answer close to 1/3 of the historical, theological of philosophical issues I presented with the incarnation theology well."

As you can see that is not what Samuel Green wrote or meant. He wrote very clearly that he did not answer 1/3rd of Ijaz's points WELL. He did not say he did not answer 1/3 of Ijaz' point.

Another point you wrote in your review of Ijaz's debate with Bob.

"As for Ijaz Ahmad’s debate performance, I have to give kudos to him for restraining himself from making any kind of snide comments or below the belt attacks in this latest performance"

So I guess you missed it when Ijaz at the end said that Jesus Christ when he returns is a mass murderer killing infidels like me because I do not believe in him. He even had the audacity to misrepresent on this blog or on his own and say that this was Bob's point when in fact it was Ijaz himself who said it.

Really man get a different friend

Matt said...

Ijaz Ahmed is a bunch of hot air...I have debated him twice on facebook on the first 300 years of Islam compared to the first 300 years of Christianity. He was losing the debate so he resorted to making up a story about a mass excution of Marcionites by the Roman church. I asked for a.reference and he had none. Apparently, Ijaz was doing his Al Taqeyya on me.. I also have a short debate with Dr. Bilal Philips on Jesus being the SON of God. After a short debate Dr. Philips now knows that Jesus Christ claimed to be THE Son of GOD! Write me if you would like to see the discussion. Shalom