Monday, 23 August 2010

Does the Sun orbit the Earth According to the Qur'an?

I was hoping some Muslims could educate us about these passages.

“(God is) the one Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion” (Sura 21: 33).

I find it rather obvious from what this passage depicts that the day and night depends upon the orbit of the sun and moon. In other words, contrary to what Muslim apologists exclaim about the sun's galactic orbit, the passage appears rather to describe the sun and the moon in parallel orbits.

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)(Sura 36: 40).

That the Qur'an refers to parallel orbits is further clarified in this passage, which states that the sun and the moon do not catch up each other.

Think of it: what sense does this make if the Qur'an described a galatic orbit since the moon is already attached to such an orbit, and since the orbit relates not to the galaxy but the day and night? Furthermore, notice that this passage states the impossible task of the sun to catch up the moon.

Why can't the sun catch up the moon, is due to its inability to do so? No really! The passage makes it clearly that the sun is not permitted to do so. In other words, the sun has the ability to catch the moon, hence the switch from day to night, since both travel in parallel orbits; yet their abilities to catch up is simply not permitted.

I might here agree with some that the passages are metaphorical, much like Sura 91: 1-2:

By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour; By the Moon as she follows him…(Sura 91: 1-2)

I must say I have no real problem with the metaphorical language of this passage, and I am inclined to believe that this simply describes what is observable from the earth.

Yet there are two further problems here:

The first, which I will refrain from looking at at this point, is the very language utilized by the Qur'an in describing the orbits, which appear to be in a close similtude with the pre-Islamic thinkers.

The second problem derives from the interpretation of Muhammad himself:

Sahih Al-Bukbari clearly confirms some of these as scientific facts (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421: Narrated Abu Dharr):

The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.
And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’"

Thursday, 19 August 2010

An Outsider's Observation and Perspective

While I am not living in USA, I have to say that the anti-Christian, liberal, and extreme pro-Islamic movement astonishes me. I guess this is what we Christians refer to as the spirit of anti-Christ.

What do we mean by that! Well in what sense do liberalism, atheism (frequently) and Islam cohere together? Where is the logic? Personally as I see it: these, despite their diversity all originate from the same root!

Here is a comment I found on a forum related to the possibility that Obama is a Muslim in disguise. More and more Americans seem to take this view onboard.

What really concerns me when I read such information is not merely Obama religious view, but the collective force, the trend in USA of liberalists, atheists, media, the political system along with Islam that manages to suppress Christianity to such an extent that the next step practically speaking can only result in serious future injustice against the Christian community.

We can only imagine the effect when such individuals are placed in every significant post of the American society, whether religious affairs, foreign ministry and national security.

Such individuals will simply sell or hand over your nation and rights to foreign forces and cultures, typically due to political correctness or due to decades of mind-twisting liberal and postmodernist philosophies.

Anyway here is the comment!

(I would like to know if all these points are based upon reality and whether the situation really is what the comment portrays.)

You decide for yourself America:

A Christian University is asked to
cover all Crosses in order to have the Pres to speak there, so that it wouldn't
offend "the muslims."

Christians are asked to pray in the street and not
on the lawn of the white house, just a couple of weeks ago;

White House
holds "ram-a-@#$% dinner", a muslim holiday, this last week at the white house;

NASA is asked to not explore space, but to "reach out to the muslim
nations, and let them know how much they've contributed to "space innovation";

Our pres has repeatedly said we are "not a Christian Nation."

he Christian or Muslim?

Saturday, 14 August 2010

The Big Bang and the Qur'an???

This post includes an essay on the Qur'an and Cosmogony with a focus on the Big Bang theory, which I wrote five years ago. The purpose was obviously to debunk the various exponents of Islam (e.g. Bucaille, Harun Yahya and Osama Abdallah) who propagate their wishful imagination to what they deem as scientific evidence for the Qur'an.

Since then I have greatly expanded my insight into the matter and am currently preparing a more detailed work, which I may post in small parts or in a lengthy essay in near future.
Notice that my intention here is not to debunk the improbability of the Qur'anic view (that will derive in a later post) but to point out that the Qur'anic picture of the cosmological origin was a view that flourished centuries prior to the rise of Islam, and which the authors and composers of the Qur'an appear to have borrowed from circulating teaching or sources, sometimes (possibly) even word for word.

To assess the cosmology of the Qur’an our study has to begin with its concept of cosmogony, the origins. Here Muslims usually refer to Sura 21: 30:

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? (Sura 21: 30)’


Friday, 6 August 2010

Is this atheist logic?

Was just informed by an atheist that the cells and DNA system simply confirms that God lacks imagination and furthermore that if God willed or created the cells to reproduce themselves by copies why only cells, why do typical animal or human beings not possess the ability to simply copy themselves rather than undergo the process of sexual intercourse, conception and birth?

What... are atheists now claiming that the DNA system reveals lack of imagination???

Sounds like Dawkins' assertions: that the molecule world is so simple that the evolutionary process easily explains its existance and functions. I agree with Stuart Burgess, that Dawkins' proposition here is naive to the core. The cell and DNA system constitutes a world of complexity far too incomprihensive for modern scientists to fathom.

Hence such an atheist claim amounts to accomplish nothing but to reveal desparation and silliness.

And how about the other argument, that God could have willed the animal world to copy themselves in similar ways to the cells. If that is supposed to be creative imagination the reality is quite the opposite; in fact such an idea reveals only the atheist expectation and view of the world in general, that of chaos, funny how continuous chaos is viewed as comparative with a creative mind of order.

Good grief, what a world, I can imagine making a copy of myself on a everyday basis, imagine 10.000 Hogan Elijah Hagbard's; I can imagine a quick human exodus to Mars. How could we cope, yet imagine a world that was a million times more populated than presently? Would life not have seized several millenniums ago?

Are we not rather to conclude that the world, production and function of the cells and that of the animal and human world are better separated and hence merely reveals the effective mindset of divine intellegence?

Thursday, 5 August 2010

Is Muhammad Predicted in the Biblical Old Testament Writings?

The Koran itself makes this statement, and Muslims have strongly attempted to prove this point by referring to particular passages in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.

Muslims usually wonder why Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet, and the answer is obvious: 1) the Jewish and Christian Scripture refer nowhere to Muhammad, and secondly 2) Muhammad does not fulfil the standard of a prophet as set out in the Bible.

The Koran says:

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures in the Taurat and he Gospel” (Sura 7: 157)

And remember Jesus, the Son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (Sent) to you, confirming the Taurat (which came) before me, and giving a glad tidings of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad” but when he came to them with clear signs, they said “This is evident sorcery” (Sura 61: 6)

Thus the Koran states that Muhammad is predicted and found within the Torah and the Gospel as it was read and understood by the Christians and the Jews in the era of Muhammad.

I. Muhammad predicted in the Torah

Muslims will usually claim that God’s blessing upon Ishmael was the prediction concerning Muhammad; however, taking a closer look, we find that there is virtually no prophetic blessing ascribed to Ishmael (Gen. 16:7-15; 17:17-21; 21: 13, 18; 25:12-18). Even the Qur’an itself confirms that the line of prophet-hood ran through the nation of Israel and its prophets (2:47; 29:47; 45:16-17).

The Muslim scholar Jamal Badawi seeks however, to argue his case on the issue by stating that a position of the kind always went to the firstborn first, which in this case is Ishmael, however:

1) this decision was taken before the law was inaugurated,

2) secondly God is above the law and

3) thirdly the context makes the whole setting understandable.

The Bible recognises the same to occur in terms of both David and Solomon (1 Samuel 16:6-13
1 Chronicles 29:23-25), and this is indeed accepted by the Koran

We gave knowledge to David and Solomoon and they both said: ‘Praise be to Allah, Who has favored us above may of His servants who believe! And Solomon was David’s heir. He said: O ye people we have taught the speech of birds and we have been given of every thing: this is indeed grace manifest (from Allah)’ (Sura 27: 15-16)

The classic point referred to by Muslims is Deuteronomy 18:18 which says:

I will raise up for them a prophet like you among their own brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I commanded you.”

The attempt of the Muslim is to state that compared to Moses, no prophet presented himself in the same close similitude as Muhammad. To prove their point Muslim scholars have listed a range of parallel elements which mark the life and accomplishments of both individuals.

E.g. Ahmed Deedat in his booklet What the Bible says about Muhammed comes up with these points:

1) Moses and Muhammad were prophets, while Jesus according to the Gospels was the Son of God!

- however, notice that this attempt is futile as the Gospels do refer to Jesus as a prophet too (Mark 6:4)

2) Moses and Muhammad were both married, Jesus was not

- if that is important we also need to consider the number of wives Muhammad had in comparison to Moses, which proves to be highly unequal

3) Moses and Muhammad had both a father and mother, but Jesus had no father

- to use this argument a Muslim is simply referring to Jesus on a much higher level than Muhammad, and secondly if this is important why should we stop here, why not also consider the comparison between the parents of Moses and Muhammad?

4) Both Moses and Muhammad, were accepted by their people while Jesus was rejected

- firstly Jesus was indeed accepted by his followers, and secondly his mission is not over yet. The time is coming when he will receive global acceptance. Secondly, was Muhammad really accepted by all, or did he simply force his rule?

5) Moses and Muhammad were both rulers, Jesus never ruled a people or anyone

- Jesus stated that he is ruling already now over heaven and earth (Matthew 28), however again, his mission is not completed yet, he will return to rule globally

6) Moses and Muhammad gave laws to the people Jesus did not

- wrong again, read the sermon on the mountain or Jesus’ words prior to his ascension (Matt.28:20)

7) Moses and Muhammad died a natural death, while Jesus’ according to the Gospel died as a sacrifice

- 1) Moses was killed by God himself, 2) Jesus died as a sacrifice and 3) Muhammad was possibly poisoned by a Jewish women; which of these three died a natural death?

8) Moses and Muhammad are both buried but Jesus according to the Gospel was taken to heaven

- Jesus was buried for a few days, as for Moses there is no grave, we are left ignorant. The main issue is, is this really and truly relevant anyway?

This kind of approach is obviously formulated by an individual who is grossly desperate and whose lack of Biblical knowledge simply leads him to pull verses out of context, combine them with other verses and add a slight of speculation. For example what has marriage got to do with the similitude of prophet-hood?

If this kind of approach lays the criteria, then the Muslim also needs to consider the elements which speak against Muhammad’s prophet-hood and present a disparate comparison between him and Moses:

Similar argumentation proving Muhammad to be unlike Moses:

1) Both Moses and Jesus were Israelites descending from the prophet line of Isaac of Jacob;
Muhammad was an Arab

2) Both Moses and Jesus were in Egypt; Muhammad was not

3) Both Moses and Jesus were saved as babies; Muhammad was not

4) Moses (Ex.33: 13-14) and Jesus (Matt.11) knew God personally, Muhammad did not!

5) Moses and Jesus could read, Muhammad could not, according to most Muslims

6) Both Moses and Jesus did miracles, but according to the Qur’an Muhammad performed none (Sura 24: 13) (29: 50).

7) Jesus and Moses never advocated foreign gods, however Muhammad at one point encouraged the worship of the three daughters of Allah.

8) The passage in Deut.18: 18 cannot refer to Muhammad since the whole context deals with Israel and individual positions within that society, such as prophets, who were to originate from the nation of Israel, that is: from among their own brothers, just like the kings (17:14-15) and priests (18:2).

Hence this prophecy whether a prediction of a line of prophets (from Joshua and unward) or a specific reference to the Lord Jesus Christ, is a prediction of prophets or a prophet who is an Israelite. This completely devastates the claim of Muslims that this particular prophecy refers to Muhammad.

The Actual context of Deut.18: 15-20

The argument falls to ground merely by considering the actual context of Deut.18, and this is where modern Islamic scholarship finds itself debunked.

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your own brethren—him you shall heed (15). Just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die’ (16). And the Lord said to me, ‘They have rightly said all that they have spoken’ (17). I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth…(18)”.

In other words the promise of a prophet like Moses was an answer to Israel’s prayer. One who will succeed Moses and stand between Israel as a nation and God; in this context it had no global or international implication; the matter concerns the nation of Israel only.


“And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him (19). But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death (20)”.

It becomes obvious from verses 19-20 that the prophet has a plural significance, in other words, the ‘prophet’ is a prediction of several prophets rather than a particular one.

Secondly, since the passage refers to the context of Israel and the function of prophets there within. In other words, the prophet like Moses begins with Joshua. Thus the most accurate interpretation reveals that the ‘prophet’ refers to the line of prophets, from Moses up to Jesus Christ.

It is vital here, that Muhammad did at one time through prophetical utterance permit the worship of idols. This according to Deuteronomy 18: 20 renders Muhammad as a false prophet. Later the particular verses (known as the satanic verses) were abrogated from the Quran by the angel Gabriel (Sura 17:73 – 75, Sura 22:52-53, Sura 52: 19-26 Bukhari 6: 385; Tabari vol 6: 107).

This one of the main reasons, why Christians refuse to accept Muhammad as a prophet from God and certainly not as the last prophet, he simply did not meet the standard!

There is more, verses 21-22, speak of the actual sign which confirms prophethood, that is the fulfilment of his predictions, say a prophet really speaks for God and Muhammad did fail in this area as well; e.g. Sunan Abu Dawud, book 37: Number 4283 (Did the Dajjal appear in the seventh year of the battle over Constantinople?).

II. Is Muhammad predicted elsewhere in the Old Testament?

Since the word mahamaddim is used in Song of songs 5:16 Muslims quickly assert that Muhammad is being predicted.

However mahamaddim is a Hebrew word, which simply refers to a ‘loved one’ (literary it means delights) in a romantic setting; the same noun is applied in several Old Testament passages such as Hosea 9:6,16; 1 Kings 20:6; Lamentations 1:10,11; 2:4; Isaiah 64:10; 2 Chronicles 36:19; Ezekiel 24:16,21,25.

Secondly the passage does not describe Muhammad but possibly king Solomon or even a shepherd boy.

Often Deut.33: 2 and Habakkuk 3: 3 are used to claim that Paran refers to Mecca, however Paran is located in the Sinai Peninsula near Egypt. Secondly, the context of Deut.33 speaks of an event in the history of Israel, not Saudi Arabia in the era of Muhammad.

Some Muslims refer to the servant in Isaiah 42:1 to prove Muhammad, however the context clearly refers to a Jewish related individual, who is a peacemaker and fits the full context of the anointed Messiah.

The Muslim scholar Badawi postulates that Isaiah 21:13-17 is a reference to the battle of Badr, however the context speaks about the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of Arabia.

Psalm 84:6 is often used to prove the pilgrimage to Mecca, however the name used, Baca, is located in northern Israel, as near as five miles from Jerusalem.

Isaiah 29: 11-12 is supposed to refer to the giving of the Quran to someone who is unable to read (Muhammad), however according to the context, it is the rebellious people of Israel (not God) who provide the book. Thus, say Muhammad is the focus, then not Allah but the rebellious people of Israel provide Muhammad with the Koran (talk about corruption), and then again, how about the other individual who is literate? Who is he? Also we need to consider that the text is plural, and no particular individual seems to be in mind, and finally the book is sealed and can therefore not be read; is the Muslim thus willing to admit that he can’t read his own holy book?

Isaiah 42-45 speak about a chosen anointed one, yet again we need to look at the context as; in Isaiah 42 the chosen anointed servant clearly is a Messianic prediction, in Isaiah 42-44, 48-49 it is Israel, and in Isaiah 41 and 45 it is the Persian king Cyrus.

Saturday, 24 July 2010

Quantum Level Evidence of an Independent or Caused Universe

How did the universe originate, from where and by which mechanism? Are there traces in the physical realm that may reflect cosmological inauguration, which then suggests another alternative than the necessity of a creator? By far the most developed argument against the theistic view is the often atheist response in which he asserts original building blocks of physics to reflect cosmological origins.

As to the cosmological view of ex nihilo (creation or appearance from nowhere and nothing), the foundational questions being raised related to cosmogony relate primarily to the original building blocks of existence. Are such building blocks self-caused, did they appear independently or were they caused by external factors? If we consider available evidence of an empirical nature, the only supporting pointers are obtained by considering the quantum world particles. Here we need to consider two types of ‘quantum occurrence’, firstly the ‘manipulated lab occurrence’ and secondly the ‘free occurrence’.

Indeed according to the ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle’, particles on quantum level truly appear and behave like ghostlike entities (1), almost equivalent to waves (2). They cannot be interpreted according to time (3), neither can we measure their movement while simultaneously measuring their positions, and vice versa (4). The quantum world also appears completely probabilistic rather than determined (5), and most importantly it has often been asserted that observation reveals their ability to appear randomly out of nothing, through vacuum fluctuation (6).

This conclusion is based however, not upon natural conditions, but by experimental manipulation of particles. By virtually speeding up protons and electrons in particle accelerators by a velocity that almost reaches the speed of light, particles collide from which mass spontaneously appears (7).

Physicists seem to envisage that under such accelerating conditions the ‘initial condition’ of the early universe can be recreated.

While Davies indeed states that such discoveries come close to creation out of nothing (8), he nevertheless raises several objections. He points out firstly, that such particles are ‘dependent’ as they derive from energy within a vacuum rather than a condition of zero energy or virtually nothing (9); secondly, that its process is inaugurated by intelligent lab manipulation rather than a natural random cause (10). Furthermore, such particles are annihilated as spontaneously as they appear (11); in fact some critics remark that manipulated particles may not be real (12).
Hence, while such experiments may reveal the early ‘initial condition’ and Planck time era as Hawking also proposes (13), they do not reveal particles appearing as self-caused, neither do they reveal anything about the condition of a zero energy state or singularity. Here we would need to consider a totally independent fluctuation prior to any envisaged cosmological conditions.
Davies also concedes that these discoveries which occur in isolated systems of laboratories cannot relate to the entire universe (14).

Yet free vacuum fluctuation may still occur within the random abilities of nature. It has been theorized that black holes, which in theory is the closest we reach a singularity state (15), may cause such an occurrence apart from intelligent manipulation. However that is plausible only if it is assumed that gravity or electromagnetism can effect the positive energy of a mass, which indeed is envisaged to occur near black holes (16). If so, it might denote that the universe in its ‘primeval bang’ might have been a zero energy offset by negative energy or gravitational attraction. Yet such reasoning is obviously problematic, as particles appearing within black hole proximity presumably still depend upon some kind of energy (17), occurrence and space.
Hence self-caused, independent energy appears to contradict scientific observation. Current scientific observation reveals that space or vacuum is never empty (18); therefore at the present vacuum never reaches a ground state of zero energy (19).

Accordingly even spontaneous appearance of particles in a black hole proximity are not closely related to ex nihilo either. Hence according to the theory, energy and particles are dependent upon both time and vacuum (20). However, we may also argue that if vacuum, against all logic even succeeded to become entirely empty, particles would still depend upon vacuum (21).

From this we may conclude that while the universe may originally have fluctuated much like quantum particles, quantum particles despite their random behaviour are not independent.



1. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103

2. Etienne Klein, Conversations with the Sphinx: Paradoxes in Physics (London: Souvenir Press, 1996), pp. 66-8, 109-23: Einstein envisaged quantum particles to be equivalent to waves; see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 105-11

3. John Barrow, Theories of Everything: The Quest for the Ultimate Explanation (London: BCA, 1991), pp. 63-4; see also John Wright, Designer Universe: Is Christianity compatible with modern Science (Crowborough: Monarch, 1994), pp. 56-7

4. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 103

5. Ibid, p. 35

6. Quentin Smith, The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe, 1988 (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
see also Davies, God and the New Physics, pp.30-4

7. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 26

8. Davies, God and the New Physics, p.31

9. ibid, pp. 31-2; Davies states that the process of the experiment does not reveal matter appearing from nowhere as we still have to account for where the energy came from in the first place. See also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-8; they argue that the energy required to make these particles are borrowed from the vacuum; hence the experiment does not resemble ex nihilo

10. Davies, God and the New physics, p. 31; see also Tony M. Liss and Paul L. Tipton, The Discovery of the Top Quark in David H. Levy (ed.) The Scientific American, Book of the Cosmos, p. 331- 37

11. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7

12. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator (USA: Zondervan, 2004), p. 123

13. Quentin Smith, Quantum Cosmology’s Implication of Atheism,, 1997 (Accessed 18 June, 2008)
Here Quentin Smith elaborates on Hawking’s conclusions

14. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32

15. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pp- 93-4, 128 and Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 110-5; see also Antony Flew, There is God, p. 118, he describes the theory of multiverses (see pages 12-3), as all universes, including ours materialised from black holes.

16. Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York: Bantam Books, 1998), pp. 111- 4; see also Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, London: Bantam Press, 2001, ppp. 116-129 and Davies, God and the New Physics, pp. 31-2, and Adam and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 128-35

17. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 32

18. ibid, p. 18; see also Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, pp. 6-7

19. Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, pp. 44-5; this is not to be mixed with the fact that the universe as a whole has a total energy of zero caused by positive energy of matter being cancelled by negative energy of attracting gravity, see Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 136)

20. Adams and Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe, p. 7

21. Heinz R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, pp. 338-9

Saturday, 17 July 2010

Is Darwinian and neo-Darwinian Evolution outdated in the light of the most recent science?

Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box expounds upon the theory of Darwinian evolution and its succeeding postulate neo-darwinism as outdated scientific conjecture in terms of understanding the mystery of life’s origin.

The fact remains quite simple, neither postulate is up to date with the most recent discoveries of the complex molecule system, the cells, it machinary and the DNA.

I have to admit that Behe is not radically opposed to the evolution theory, he writes: ‘I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study development...within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world...however I do not believe it explains molecular life’ (p. 5). Hence Behe is inclined to believe that Darwin’s evolution theory indeed might help understand horse hoofs, but certainly not life’s foundation (p.4).

I realise that many atheists out of ignorance have pointed out that Behe occasionally corrects himself in favour of the evolution theory, however, granted the Behe is open toward evolution, the matter is not related to his occasional favour of evolution in certain often irrelevant details, but his overall tendency to be inclined in favour of design and a more divine intervention that greatly ascends mere naturalism.

Make no mistake about as Behe states: ‘Can all of life be fit into Darwin’s theory of evolution? Because the popular media likes to publish exciting stories and because some scientists enjoy speculating about how far their discoveries might go, it has been difficult for the public to separate fact from conjecture...’ (p.5). Hence here and elsewhere Behe considers much of the evolutionary enterprise as mere humbug; in fact in relation to molecular science he write: ‘...if you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus on your search on the question on how molecular machines machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence’ (p.5).

Behe’s further point depicts how Darwinian exponents have utilized in their tendency a range of childish and simply solutions to explain the complexity of the molecular system and the human body as a whole, e.g. the eye, which Darwin claimed had gradually evolved from a very simple function to the human incredibly complex machinery, and this conclusion based upon the idea that the lesser effective examples of functional eyes in a variety of animal species would therefore have to reveal a gradual evolvement from a lesser effective function to another; however this trick will not do with the newer and more advanced discoveries within biological science; we have today advanced far too considerably to fall for such outdated conjecture.

According to Behe the evolution theory is simply an outdated model of the understanding of life and its origin, which in modern days ought to be exchanged for the new advancement in science which recognises that biology and the human body is based much more upon engineering science than mere natural evolution, and which therefore demands a creator.

Interestingly a year ago I read a Danish report laying in the Danish embassy in London (2009) which reckoned that the Darwinian evolutionary theory was only held as a valid theory by 20 percent of the British population, the number is supposedly the same in Denmark, an utterly secular nation.
What does this suggest? It suggests that Darwinian evolution is currently a theory that the majority of thinking individuals recognise based upon the most recent discoveries as devoid of logic, reason and proof, and that there is far too much more complex and intelligent details that suggest an intellectual cause for the origin of life rather than random effect and a meaningless universe.

I guess individuals will have to decide between the most recent atheist conclusion, namely that E.T. planted DNA in the sea 400 million years ago (which of course begs the question, on which star E.T. was planted, when and by whom) or that a divine and eternal being not depending upon neither time, space or anything, by its own intellect, will and power originated existence and life.

Tuesday, 22 June 2010

Update: Zakir Naik banned from Canada too

There is now an update on the Zakir Naik versus the West Controversy: Zakir Naik now appears to get banned from Canada too:

Zakir Naik banned from the UK

Home Secretary Theresa May said she had barred Zakir Naik, a 44-year-old television preacher based in Mumbai, for inflammatory remarks he was known to have made in the past.

Naik had been due to give a series of lectures in London and the city of Sheffield in northern England.

"Numerous comments made by Dr Naik are evidence to me of his unacceptable behaviour," May said in a statement, without elaborating.

The Daily Telegraph on Friday reported Interior Ministry sources saying that 2006 website footage had shown Naik telling Muslims it was acceptable to embrace terrorism in certain instances.

According to the paper, Naik said Muslims should beware of people saying Osama bin Laden was right or wrong, adding: "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him.

"If he is terrorising the terrorists, if he is terrorising America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, every Muslim should be a terrorist."

He is also reported by the paper to have suggested Western women make themselves "more susceptible to rape" by wearing revealing clothing.

"Western society has actually degraded (women) to the status of concubines, mistresses and social butterflies, who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers," the paper quoted him as saying.

May said: "Coming to the UK is a privilege not a right and I am not willing to allow those who might not be conducive to the public good to enter."

The minister made it clear she had not banned him simply because of his views, which is prohibited under the law.

A Home Office spokesman said the powers were used if an individual expressed views that "foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs" or "seek to provoke others to terrorist acts."

He declined to elaborate on the exact nature of his comments, or when they were made.
(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Alison Williams)

Here is the youtube in which Zakir Naik glorifies terrorism on USA:

The previous trend of Western over-kindness to those who wish to harm to our society is deplorable. Of course we should not permit terrorists or the exponents of terrorism, supression and persecution (such as Zakir Naik) to enter our society; I rejoice over this decision of the UK.

Thursday, 17 June 2010

Richard Dawkins turns to the Aliens

I recommed greatly the documentary movie of Ben Stein: 'Expelled, no Intellegence allowed'

In a interview with Ben Stein, Richard Dawkins finally admits that the earliest stages of life's development is indeed slightly complicated if we adduce from the bulk of modern wildly imagined postulates that life evolved from utter chaos by nature's random process.

Now our shaken atheist buddy suggests that life on earth might originally be created by some almost incomprehensible alien being which consequently planted this life on earth. Obviously Dawkins presumes that these alien beings were also the products of random evolution.

I am amazed, our atheist friends now believe in aliens and that life on earth was produced by aliens!

After such ridicolous statements should I still expect that atheists believers and exponents will continue to solely follow their highpriest?

At least Dawkins is ready to embrace the fact that a non-earthly being or force intelligently controlled the complexity of human life, unfortunately he hardens his mind and hearth to simply reject the possibility that such a being might be God. Secondly what gives Dawkins the authority to state that such alien beings were evolved through evolution? Seems that Dawkins has an effective explanation to the realm of the universe unknown to us and the mysterious unknown to us.

Friday, 21 May 2010

A Muslim Challenge

On one of the threads of this blog a Muslim who calls himself Ashfaq wrote:

ASHFAQ said...
Dear Sir

Iam asking you, can you read Ezekiel chapter 23 in the meeting hall? I will book the hall for you and you can invite your people and I will invite my people in the hall. I dare you come in the meeting hall and read Ezekiel chapter 23 in front of all the people. Send me message at
Read the entire thread, comments and response here:

Hogan replies:

Hi Ashfaq

I will most gladly come and read Ezekiel 23 out loud for you. You are mostly welcome to pay my flight tickets, my stay and whatever expanses related and to rent a hall. When you have done so, I will come and read the passage out loud. I also will invite every believer in the area to come and listen.

Now, what is your name and contact number?

If you provide me with that I will quickly arrange a contact person to whom you can give the money.

As soon as the money are provided I will come and read Ezekiel 23 for you
Furthermore I would like to challenge you as well. At this same venue and in the same gathering, I would like you read before the entire gathering Sura 33: 50-52:

PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

PICKTHAL: Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.

PICKTHAL: It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things.

Wow, that is moral standard or what?

Monday, 22 March 2010

Atheism and the Big Bang theory: Is there coherence?

The Big Bang Theory implies that the universe erupted from nothing or from an infinite state of singularity in which the entire energy and existence of the present universe was confined. Initially as the universe bursts out of this prison it expands through various stages until matter and energy is released in open space and matter is freed to form into gaseous clouds, then into stars gathering into groups of galaxies.

Contrary to the often held notion that the Big Bang is an atheistic model of existence, the Big Bang theory would require the need of an original mechanism, it implies the necessity and need for a creator who powered it, including a cause behind the universe that depends upon intelligence. This has indeed caused concern within the scientific academic world, which otherwise induces natural explanations only (Andrei Linde, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, in The Scientific American (ed.) David H. Levy, New York, Macmillan Publishers, 2000, p. 386).

Very few atheists dare to touch this topic in details and most scientists and philosophers either remain silent on the matter or at least indicate the possibility of divine action. The former atheist Antony Flew claims that the Big Bang theory changed everything and disturbed the naturalistic paradigms of the cosmologist and the atheist alike (There is a God, pp. 136-7). Also Hawking records that there were reactions against his work since it upset many physicists while it delighted religious leaders who believed in an act of creation, ‘for here was scientific proof (Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, p.41).’ Indeed the atheist exponent, Quentin Smith, concedes that among atheists an uncomfortable silence ruled and the response is weak and almost invisible (see Quentin Smith, A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God’s Nonexistence (, 1992)

Consequently, a number of atheist scientists have embraced as a clear probability the existance of a creator, e.g. Robert Jastrow and Antony Flew (see: Jastrow, Until the Sun Dies, p. 21 and Antony Flew, There is God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: Harper Collins Books, 2007), pp. 136-7).

Saturday, 6 March 2010

Exposing Barakah: A rhetoric interrogation by Barakah on Pal-talk’s: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’.

On 5 Mars I was contacted by a Christian debater from Pal Talk and after a little chat I decided to journey through a number of rooms on the Social issues.

One particular room of interest was the Islamic room: ‘Muslim Women are Respected and not Oppressed’, which was administrated by an Arabic female Muslim with a French accent, by the name ‘Barakah’ whom I (after 30 minutes experience on the chat room) deem to be a psycho.

As far as I know the name 'Barakah' means blessing, however, the experience was closer to a curse.

I entered the room ‘Muslim Women are Respected not Oppressed’ stayed for a little while whereupon I left a link to a Christian site before entering another room. Leaving a link seemed reasonable to me since it did not seem to be prohibited. After a minute, Barakah virtually hunts me down on pal-talk, sending me at least 15 notifications and a private message.

In the private message Barakah through rather intimidated wordings challenged me to be brave enough to dare enter the room again where she threatened to publically expose me and my religion. It was quite obvious from her wordings that I would be considered a coward unless I acted upon her command.

It was also perfectly obvious to me that entering the ‘Muslim Women are Respected and Not Oppressed’ room, meant entering a room full of Muslims, with debate based upon violent insult, intimidation and Muslim rhetoric including an admin that would continually victimize me by red doting by blocking my text and muting my voice.

After a few minutes I nevertheless decided to take the risk and give the Muslim female debater a chance.

I quickly realised that my expectation of the room were far from exaggerated. Barakah made it very clear that she did not care about me or my religion, or my answers or explanation; in fact she claimed openly that as a Christian I simply had no answers and nothing worth saying, so I could simply spare myself the effort.

So now I was getting really confused, she had called me back into the room to defend my faith, yet after meeting her challenge and being brave (according to her mentality) and entering the room I am immediately informed by her and the room that they have already presupposed that as a Christian I should not be listened to.

This was turning out to get really funny.

Well I still decided to give her a chance.

After several minutes of abuse and rhetoric (only God knows what I had to put up with) she finally asked me to come to the mic and show the room ‘where Jesus says he is God’. I had a good answer to her question, but I refused to enter a debate that reminded about an interrogation (I know that Muslims tend to like it this way, my own experience is an excellent example). I am indeed happy to debate or dialogue, yet if Muslims think that I am or consider myself a ‘dhimmi’ like the Christians they suppress in their own Muslim nations (and from whom they mentally drain all confidence and personal pride), they will quickly find themselves very offended.

Rather than letting Barakah interrogate me and decide my wordings. I asked for five minutes to explain this question but I never got that far; after only 15 seconds I was muted. Barakah came back on the mic and insulted me for being unable to answer and scared to deal with the issue whereupon she challenged me to take the mic again and answer her question.

Again I only managed to speak on the mic for 10 seconds, without being allowed to answer the question. I got muted as before by Barakah, who again resorted to insult my personality, religion and had the audacity to claim again and again that I was a coward. She had even blocked my writing to unable my comments to her insults and abuse.

She challenged me a third time to take the mic and answer her question.

By this time it was clear that this was not a debate or a dialogue but a rhetorical conversation in which I was being interrogated and yet not permitted to answer. This was abuse, intimidation, manipulation a joke. She stated time and time again that she had no interest in my answer and explanation, that it was simply a waste of her time.

The third time I elaborated on the word ‘coward’, this time I literally called her a coward, after all she was the one being too scared to engage me in a proper dialogue without continually red dotting me after 10 seconds and muting my answers. I pointed out that I probably was the only Christian in a room of 60 Muslims who continuously abused my character and religion, muted my answers and blocked my writings; this whole scenario was literally ridiculous.

At this point Barakah accused me of insult (yeah try imagine) and continually called me a coward and chicken for not sharing in her rhetoric games (all I had asked for was for me to answer her question in my own way; but Barakah insisted that my answer would be a waste of time).

I was allowed to the mic a fourth time, this time I challenged Barakah for a proper the debate on any subject but under a different admin, an admin would that play fair games; but Barakah (this blessing of Allah does not like fair games) as before I was muted within 15 seconds. In fact I had already challenged Barakah to debate me properly prior to this, even in writing.

This obviously made Barakah go crazy, I guess the Muslim listeners began realizing that she was running away from a challenge, and she muted me as before, called me a coward and heaped upon me insult upon insult.

I even apologized if I had come on against her too strongly or if she had found me insulting her, and again I asked respectfully if she was interested in debating me under a proper debate format and a fair admin (yeah imagine I even humbled myself to that level).

This dialogue (if we can call it a dialogue) went on for 30-40 minutes, I went on the mic probably ten times, asking her to debate me formally, and every time being red dotted after 10-15 seconds whereup I was insulted and intimidated to every possible length and at the same time prohibited from writing.

Finally I had enough and left.

I have to say that the experience reminded me of my early days in Birmingham, being encircled by 10-20 Muslims and being bombarded with questions and arguments without being given the opportunity to answer.

In fact most Muslims I have encountered in debate and dialogue are not interested in the Christian answering, either due to the ‘dhimmi’ mentality or because they are scared to listen and particularly scared of the answers or objections raised by the opponents (possibly both).

Barakah seems to have all the questions but to dread the answers and the contra attack against her faith.

I would advise Christians not willingly to submit themselves to chat rooms or individuals who resort to such behaviour or rhetoric methods. Yet my challenge to Barakah remains, I am more than willing to meet her in a proper debate with a pre-planned format under an admin which will act fairly toward both of us.

The impression I had of Barakah is: she knew that in a proper debate against me and without her administrative authority to reddot and mute her opponents, her arguments and her faith would have been ripped into pieces (she knew that); hence the reddot was and is her only protection.

However, I seem not to be the only one having experienced the desperately antagonising behaviour of Barakah; here is another example from Youtube (but it reveals far from the level of antagonizing behaviour Barakah experienced by me):

My only conclusion after 40 minutes on her chat room is: despite her admin authority and reddot she was hiding behind she was in reality on the run.

Saturday, 27 February 2010

Illustrations and Examples of the Lack of Logic in Muslim Argumentation

How do Muslims engage in dialogue? Here are three excellent illustrations from the blog; two by David Wood and one example from Fatman (I suggest the reader to read the illustrations in their full context from the that blog; but I am just fascinated how this illustrates so perfectly what we are dealing with and which I myself have experienced firsthand):

CHRISTIAN: The Qur'an says, "Fight those who do not believe" (9:29). This means that Muslims are supposed to fight unbelievers.
MUSLIM: No, it simply meant that one particular group of Muslims was supposed to fight a particular group of Christians that was attacking them at a particular time.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what it says at all.
MUSLIM: But that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Can you give me a Muslim source saying that?
MUSLIM: No, but that's what it means.
CHRISTIAN: Well, since you can't give any Muslim sources that agree with your interpretation, let me give you some commentaries that agree with my interpretation. Ibn Kathir says . . .
MUSLIM: Ibn Kathir! Who cares what Ibn Kathir or any other Muslim commentator says!
CHRISTIAN: It seems you don't want to listen to classical Muslim commentators because they say that "Fight those who do not believe" means "Fight those who do not believe."
MUSLIM: Enough of this paranoid, Islamophobic racism!

MUSLIM: Christianity is a religion of violence and bloodshed!
CHRISTIAN: Nonsense. Jesus said that we are to love our enemies and to pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-48). He said that His followers do not fight, because the Kingdom of God is not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36). When one of His followers used the sword, Jesus condemned the attack (Matthew 26:52). Paul said that we "do not war according to the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3-4).
MUSLIM: Yes, but all of those verses mean the opposite of what they actually say. They really mean that Christians are to hate their enemies and that they are to spread Christianity through the sword.
CHRISTIAN: That's not what the verses say.
MUSLIM: But that's what they mean. And to show you that Christians are supposed to hate their enemies and spread Christianity through the sword, let me quote a Christian theologian from a thousand years after the New Testament was written.

The third illustration is from Fatman; I am not posting all of it here due to certain inapropriate wordings, but the full quote can be read on the blogspot:

I once had the following conversation

Muslim: To understand the Quran
you need to use the Hadeeths, but only the hadeeths that agree with the Quran.

ME: Well how am I to know which hadeeths agree with the quran if the
hadeeths are to explain the quran in the first place?

Muslim: Well
that’s were the science of the hadeeths comes in, see we have Scholars, and they
are really smart they study the quran and hadeeths and they know which hadeeths
to use.

Me: Ok then here is what Ibn Ksthir says, or this scholar or
that scholar...

Muslim: Scholars? Those are only men, we don't accept
everything a scholar says only what the quran says....

Me: But wait you
just told me that to understand the quran I need to read the hadeeths but only
the hadeeths that agree with the quran. And to know which hadeeths agree with
the quran I need to read what the scholars say, but now you say scholars are
only men and you don’t listen to men but only the Quran...

Muslim: Yes
you see now you understand... (I'm not making that part up, he really thought I
was getting it and was really impressed started doing the whole MASHALLA thing.
I mean he got really exited)

Pause for laughter because it gets

The Muslim then proceeded to read some verses in arabic... and
then he said...

Muslim: See how beautiful that is (Then he gave the
challange to produce something like it in arabic)

Me: I dont understand
arabic, or have any clue as to what you just said.

Muslim: That’s ok I
understand arabic and I will tell you what the quran says,,, YOU HAVE TO TRUST
ME. (And no I'm not making that part up either

It was at this point that
the conversation really went down hill, because I was unable to control my
laughter at this point.

He finally said...

"Why are you not a
muslim now? I have read for you lots of verses from the Allahs book in his won
language Arabic. You should be a Muslim by now."

Now keep in mind this
conversation started because I was invited by a woman who converted to islam. I
guess these are the arguments that swayed her to leave christ.

it broke down to the point, where he said I wasted his time, something about my
mother working in a brothel with my sister

I have to say I have had several similar experiences when talking to Muslims. I will never forget debating a Muslim on rape in Islam and quoting a number of passages from the Hadiths in which Muhammad literally permitted his soldiers to rape female war captives whose fathers, husbands, sons had been either killed or captivated; he responded that the text did not say 'rape' but simply that these soldiers of Islam intended to have sex with these women. He somehow assumed that these soldiers had a romantic relationship with these victims.

Now try to imagine the logic: the women have been captured, their familes killed or captured and their lives are devastated forever; are we correctly to assume that these women would fall in love with these terrorists upon the day of their devastation, I simply don't think so!

And even if such would be the case, it would suggest that Islam, the Qur'an and Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) legalised and encouraged immorality, promiscuity and sex prior or outside marriage. Well that ought not to surprise us since Muhammad and his followers originally engaged in the use of prostitutes through contemporary marriages, known as muta marriages (marriages for one or two nights by payment).

Monday, 15 February 2010

My suggestion to Yahya Snow

Since Yahya Snow has not welcomed my rebuttals of his youtube video, in which he criticises my comments made on that Islam is demonic (see link: ), and since Yahya has even removed the comment section on his blog to prevent the links and my responses to his youtube video (read his explanation: ), all I am going to do now is to ask Yahya to edit his own post and to provide the links to my blogs under the video.

My rebuttals can be read here:

This should be fair and honest toward me and the issue that has been brought up.

So far Yahya's readers and viewers are only introduced to his side of the matter and his refutation, which I have refuted into pieces (check the links to my rebuttals).

Other Christian apologists such as Semper Paratus have experienced a similar treatment doing dialogue with Yahya Snow:

So far Yahya Snow has been permitted to post freely on my blogs and the blog of Semper Paratus and he is still free to post there. Yet we do not share in this privilege when entering the blog of Yahya, which is slightly complicated when engaging in a dialogue.

I can only conclude so far that Yahya is probably being afraid of being exposed.

Yahya has contacted me urging me to be patient, however, this is not a matter of being patient, the issue concerns the basic and simple honesty of providing the full picture of our dialogue to the readers; that simply cannot demand all this time.

I will be patient and wait as long as it takes for his next rebuttal of my refutations of his video, but at least I expect him to share with his readers the full scale of this dialogue.

So what is the problem? Why is it so difficult for Yahya to provide the links to my rebuttals on Yahay's blog?

Why is Yahya afraid of comments? He claims that unmoderated comments are chaotic, and I can only say: good grief. I run three blogs and contribute to a fourth, I have never had that problem. But now Yahya states that even moderating the comment sections is an impossible task, mainly due to blasphemous statements (I guess my honest rebuttals) and dubious links (my blogs). Due to this he closed down the comment sections.

See his reason for removing the comment section here below:

'It has been removed. A moderated comment section was in vogue, however seen as I am being further pressed for time I cannot commit to moderated comments...which does require time and effort as many comments contain blasphemy and dubious links.
An unmoderated comment section does has been tried in the past and has failed pretty miserably :(

So, for those who wish to interact or have suggestions then please contact me via YouTube.'

See link below:

All I am asking Yahya to do is to present his rebuttal against me in full context and to allow his readers to know that Hogan has defended himself: that Hogan does not perceive himself as misbehaving nor does he perceive himself as being unwise. Furthermore, his readers and viewers ought to know that Hogan has defended himself against several remarks in the video in which Yahya states that Hogan must know otherwise and that Hogan has not read the Bible. Also the readers and viewers of Yahya should be introduced to the real matter, that is: what Hogan originally reacted to.

I expect therefore Yahya Snow to show honesty in this matter and edit his video or original post on his blog and on the youtube and provide the links to my rebuttals and the original issue I reacted to when I made the comment.

No offence bro, I respect you and I hope we can keep up the dialogue.

God bless

Saturday, 13 February 2010

Eight Fundamental Questions to the Christian

1. How do you know God exists?

There are a number of reasons why I believe in God; I will briefly expound on a few of these:

1) the fact that the universe began; 2) that fact there is existence rather than not; 3) the fact that the universe and life reveals organisation, design, symmetry and systems so complicated that nature and random evolution could not possible offer an alternative explanation. This makes God probable and existence without God improbable.

Furthermore, my faith in God is based upon my own experience when becoming a Christian and experiencing the supernatural aspects and side of Christianity, what we describe as the power and presence of the Holy Spirit including (and this is the most vital aspect) its transforming effect upon my life.

A third reason for my belief in God is based upon my own research and studies. Having devoted myself to investigate the Christian faith historically has simply confirmed my faith in God and the Bible.

A fourth reason probably relates more to the field of ethics and logic. I find it utterly repulsive that atheists and post-modernists can refer to ethics as relative or simply genetically inherited, etc. The fact that the human mind incorporates the ability to distinguish between good and evil confirms a law and hence a law giver (of some kind); from this we can adduce that ‘all there is’ is not simply a meaningless and purposeless universe in which we attempt to perceive or make some sense; in fact without God life and nature leaves no room for life-meaning, law, right and wrong. I guess Stalin’s concentration camps and Hitler’s gas chambers are obvious evidences of such a philosophy perceived to its core.

2. What is a Christian?

We need to be cautious about the term 'Christian', while many people would categorize themselves as Christians, the majority falls short to the full Biblical meaning of what constitutes a genuine and true Christian.

A Christian is Biblically to be perceived as 1) an individual who believes in the one God of the Bible; 2) who believes in Jesus as God revealed in flesh who entered the world to atone and save humanity from sin and future judgement. 3) Furthermore, a Christian is someone who has embraced the doctrines of Christianity in faith, repented from a life that opposes the standard of God and consequently devoted his life in service God. This makes a person a follower and disciple of Jesus.

3. Does Christianity make people good?

Well to put it more correctly Jesus Christ transforms an individual to a very different lifestyle; so yes certainly, it makes an individual into a good person. A true Christian has not only devoted his life to submit to and follow God but equally to make a difference in the world and to help and support his fellow human beings.

Christianity is therefore to be perceived as a transforming religion; it transforms the individual and the community he or she lives in. This is the reason why Christianity is so attached to social work and relief work; communal transformation constitutes what his religion stands for.

The Bible makes it rather clear, that Christianity without personal and communal transformation is not Christianity.

4. Do you think Christianity might benefit a society?

In the UK where I live, Christianity is probably one of the major contributors in the society to reach out to the homeless, the broken families, those who are neglected and lonely including the morally neglected population of youth. In various UK locations, the government has commended and urged the church to lay the ground-work socially, where the government has failed, including to provide moral sexual education to a morally bankrupted youth culture. The money and time Christians poor into the community is simply unbelievable.

I would like to see atheists (if atheism really holds the key to the solution of mankind) put less attention into the complaining trend and propaganda and if they really care about society and humanity, to focus more on the everyday problem of decline of the Western civilisation caused by decades of secularist philosophy.

5. What about all the evil and atrocities Christians have committed throughout the centuries?

We need first to clarify which atrocities you have in mind. For example the Crusades, as wicked as they might have appeared, are not correctly categorized as a Christian campaign but more of a political response to Islamic invasion of Christian territory.

Furthermore, the atrocities often ascribed to the Catholic Church also need to be clarified. When Christianity became a state religion it led to an influx within society, the multitudes simply streamed into the church without conversion or proper Biblical understanding of what a Christian is. Many of these initially reached high levels in the so called Christian community, which led to early persecution of pagans. Still in all this, Christianity gradually transformed society even though such a progress took centuries.

Yet the bottom line is, that so called Christians or priests who engaged in the hunting of witches, Jews and heretics were simply not following the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence according to Christian Scripture these were not real Christians.

6. But does the Bible itself not confirm that these misconceived Christians were correct in their conduct?

If you are referring to the Old Testament, then no, not at all! It does not confirm that these people were following Christian conduct. The Old Testament constitutes the Mosaic Law for the nation of Israel in a specific time and in a specific situation including the narrative that accompanies it, followed by additional divine prophecy as the history of Israel proceeds. In Matthew, chapter 5 Jesus clarifies that he has come to fulfil the law and the prophets, which culminated with John the Baptist from which a new era derived, the Kingdom of God (Matthew, chapter 11).

Hence: 1) the Law had ended; 2) the narrative applies to the situation in which it occurred and 3) Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophets by fulfilling its predictions, in which the Servant of God would die as an atonement for the people and be brought to life again (Isaiah 53) and from which the Spirit of God would indwell his people. All these elements of the Kingdom of God were predicted in the Old Testament prophets.

Hence in contrast to the Law given to Israel, in the Kingdom of God, the followers are not told to fight physically for their faith or to engage in the cultural and situational norms that belonged to the Mosaic society due to its time and situation; this should be logical to anyone. Hence committing atrocities in the name of God or Jesus in a Christian context is breaking away from the teaching and ethics of the Kingdom of God.

7. What evidence is available that might support the historical claims of the Christian faith?

It’s an obvious fact that Jesus existed! His teaching and the narrative surrounding it were transmitted down to us by Jesus' own apostles. This resulted initially in 50 AD to 80 AD in two written records of this transmission, written by actual apostles (Matthew and John) and further two written works, one from apostolic dictation (the Gospel of Mark) and the other recorded from oral transmission (the Gospel of Luke). The latter ones were written by two apostolic disciples Mark and Luke. Mark recording the dictation of the Apostle Peter and Luke utilizing already existing written records (Matthew and Mark---sorry I am not convinced about the two-hypothesis theory nor Q) alongside oral transmission. All this occurred while apostles and other eyewitnesses of Jesus were still alive and mutually controlling the information.

These writings were written down between 50 AD and 80 AD only, the written record beginning as early as 20 years after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension. Based upon the Jewish culture, environment and the Jewish ability and trend of the time to preserve and accurately transmit tradition it is most likely that the transmission was not corrupted nor lost within the 20 years gap between 30 AD and 50 AD. Neither was it lost in the following century, since the methods of preservation were still being applied. Furthermore, since this was the eyewitness era both corruption and loss of transmission is highly unlikely.

If we move toward the early second and late second century into the early third century, we possess a number of manuscripts of these writings. As we move from early third to late third century the number of manuscripts increases. Here we apply textual criticism. Interestingly, textual criticism has not revealed corruption or fabrication expect what we would naturally expect and recognise as typical textual errors.

So think of it this way: based upon the apostolic succession and transmission from 30AD to 90-100 AD and from 100 AD to 180 AD (the era of apostolic disciples) it is unthinkable that the information was corrupted. From that time one we already have empirical access to the information which due to the field of textual criticism confirms that the information was effectively preserved by writing.

Hence the supernatural history of the Gospels is combined effectively with secular history.

8. Why should anyone chose the Christian faith above another religious or philosophical path?

Well, atheism is in decline and has been in decline since the discovery of the Big Bang theory. In Science the fact that the universe has a beginning has not supported the philosophical ground for atheism.

Furthermore atheism has nothing to offer the world, except for the notion that we live in a senseless and meaningless universe in which laws and ethics are relative; these views are contradictory to observation and experience of nature and life in general and are repulsive to human achievements.

These views are not attractive to the human mind; in fact they are dangerous, as they reduce humanity to an animal and from that level to mere atoms. Furthermore, this view fails to strictly distinguish between good and evil, it also lead to individualism, causes moral decline, population decline and initially national breakdown.

This is why humanity needs to consider theism in its aspects, such as God, cosmological order and purpose, absolute morals and ethics, absolute rules, goals, etc.

Yet would not vote for any type of theism on the religious market!

There are a number of theistic religions which are false in their nature and origins. One has to consider which theism is the most original, logical and moral.

Since the Mosaic religion is a temporary religion meant for a certain people in a certain time and under certain circumstances, it is not to be deemed false yet it would be pointless to suggest that Judaism would work on a global scale for all people.

In the same way Islam fails on several grounds! Firstly, its origins are based upon a compilation of a variety of human sources not revelation; this provides evidence that Islam is a fabricated religion. Furthermore, Islam is by nature and from its origin a religion of war, it degrades women, suppresses and persecutes people with other opinions as well as being morally bankrupt in various areas of its view of life, such as permitting concubines, muta-marriages, rape of female captives and marriage to minors.

In the same way we need to consider Hinduism and the caste system.

Yet there is an even more effective way of discovering the theistic religion that by nature and origin presents the truth of divine intervention and revelation.

Considering all the major religions, Hinduism and Sikhism recognise Judaism, Christianity and Islam as alternative paths of salvation. However, Judaism, Christianity and Islam reject both Hinduism and Sikhism as divine revelations and paths to salvation; hence Hinduism and Sikhism annihilate their own credibility.
From here focusing on Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Islam recognises the founders and sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism and Christianity both reject Islam as a religion of God; here Islam annihilates itself.

This leaves only Judaism and Christianity. It is a fact that Christianity recognises the original religion of Israel, but Christianity does not recognise Judaism in its full sense. In the same way Judaism does not recognise Christianity.

However, Christianity has proven itself to be a legitimate continuation of the Old Testament religion of Israel. Which logically then proves Christianity to be most reliable religion on the religious market place.

Wednesday, 10 February 2010

Hogan Elijah Hagbard Responds to Yahya Snow: Does Monotheism and Belief in Jesus Serve as Evidences that the Qur'an is Not Demonically Inspired?

In Yahya Snow’s rebuttal he brings up a number of points to prove that Islam was not demonically inspired. I will just assess one of these points on this thread.

Yahya said that Islam teaches belief in Jesus and belief in Abrahamaic monotheism; Yahya then argues that Satan would never convey such teaching to anyone and hence Islam can only come from God himself.

There are a number of fallacies with these two assumptions.

Firstly according to the Epistle of James, simple belief in the God of Abraham is not sufficient and does not constitute true religion unless accompanied by certain actions, which together constitute genuine faith (James 2: 18-19).

Two points within this passage are vital of consideration:

1) simple faith in monotheism is not sufficient

2) faith has to be genuine and accompanied by certain deeds.

These deeds are the once you will find if you read e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain (the Gospel of Matthew 5-7 and e.g. James 1: 26-27) in which a number of elements clearly contradict the ethical teachings of the Qur’an. Hence according to James 2 Muslims who claim to believe in the God of Abraham and follow the Qur’an to the core will not escape hell-fire.

Let me point out one example from your youtube rebuttal and compare it with the standard found within the epistle of James.

In your rebuttal I was made the bad guy because I reacted to the rape, torture and death of Christian girl. I expounded upon my reaction since Islam clearly teaches that Christians are to be attacked, suppressed, humiliated, not be trusted and are the worst of all creatures.

Hence, no Muslim can be in his right mind if he expects me to glorify, respect or embrace the Islamic faith. Try to ask a Palestinian to recognise and respect the Nation of Israel or a Jew to embrace the rule of Nazi Germany.

You worry because I reacted with one sentence about the religion of Islam. Yet you do not seem to worry when Muslims react with violence against non-Muslims for silly things such as some cartoons or a Qur’an being desecrated. We Christians experience worse every day.

Furthermore, in your rebuttal no word was mentioned about the Christian girl, who was mutilated and eliminated; all that mattered was my reaction, which I believe was fully justified.
This is called ‘favouritism’! You favour your Muslim comrades and give a diamond when they cause such atrocities, you even call the reaction of those who speak out an act of misbehaviour and unwise.

In James 2: 8-9 we read:

‘If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law-breakers’

Now consider this Yahya. According to James chapter two, your faith in the God of Abraham only, will not save you from hell. Furthermore, you have even broken the law that is to accompany it, proving that your faith in Abraham’s God is not genuine or that the religion you follow now, which teaching contrary to God true Law is not genuine.

Notice also that in James 5: 1-6 there is a curse upon those who undermine, suppress and exploit others. Well the Qur’an teaches Muslims not to trust Christians or Jews, to attack them, suppress and treat them harshly. Hence based upon the epistle of James Islam is not from God and is correctly categorized as the influence of evil spirits (take a look at James 3:13-18 which describes to kinds of wisdoms and their nature).

But there is more. You say that Islam cannot be demonically inspired because it teaches belief in Abrahamic Monotheism and belief in Jesus.

However, Jesus condemned a number of Jews who believed in Abrahamic monotheism and in him and even categorized them as children of the devil:

‘To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”’ (John 8: 31-32).

Yet in verse 44 he says:

‘You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out your fathers desire’

These were Jews, believing in the God of Abraham, believing in Jesus. Yet these followed will of the devil.

Notice that in the Qur’an, you are clearly permitted multiple wives, your are permitted to divorce these, you are permitted concubines (females captured in war), you are commanded to attack polytheists, Christians and Jews because of their faith and to suppress them, you are told not to trust Christians or Jews and consider them the worst of creatures.

Try to compare this with the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5.

The fact is: you can believe all you want in Abrahamic monotheism and in Jesus; yet not being a true follower of Jesus you will still adhere to a doctrine or a mindset that conforms to the desire of demonic nature and you will be eternally condemned. Notice, this the teaching of Jesus, not mine.

This is why in Matthew’s Gospel chapter seven, verse 21-23 Jesus will reject many so called believers who on the day of judgement will say: ‘Lord, Lord’.

Hence just believing in Jesus is not sufficient, you need to repent and devout your life to his standard.

I have noticed that Muslims frequently use this passage in Matthew 7 as a means to argue that these are Christians who call him Lord and hence are rejected for their belief in his divinity. Yet this is not at all what the passage is teaching. Notice that verse 21 says ‘not everyone who comes to me’, in other words not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ is rejected. Notice also that verse 21 further speaks about doing the Father’s will and verse 23 speaks of evildoers. Hence the passage states that anyone whether Muslim or a so called Christian who does not live in accordance of Jesus’ standard will not be spared on the day of judgement (read the First Epistle of John more on this).

Thus being a Muslim who adheres to the Qur’an you are not in the category that follows the teaching of Jesus.

Jesus even rebuked the teachers of the monotheist Law. Look at Matthew 23 and Luke 11: 37-54. These teachers in the Law all followed Abrahamic monotheism strictly. In Luke 11, these teachers of the Law even seem to respect Jesus and ate with him; yet Luke 11 he curses these experts in monotheism; in verse 52 he says:

‘Woe to you experts in the Law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourself have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’

So try to imagine this: even monotheistic law teachers who believe in Jesus do not have the key to knowledge and are not entering the heavenly bliss.

Another vital passage, which I have brought up in our discussion before is Mark 8: 31-33. Jesus shares with his disciples that he will killed and rise again (verse 31).

Peter opposes this future event (verse 32),

As a response Jesus says to Peter:

‘Get behind me Satan! do not have in mind the things of God but the things of men.’

We all know that Islam and the Qur’an denies the crucifixion and death of Jesus, yet according to
Jesus’ teaching denying his death is evidence of demonic inspiration and relates to the human mind not the mind of God.

Hence based upon Jesus’ words in the earliest Gospel, the Qur’an contains demonic inspiration and is composed by the influence of humans. Again this is based upon the teaching of Jesus not me.

This correlates with a phrase in the Epistle of James chapter 3, verse 15, which describes the standard of Christianity versus standard that falls short of it (of which the Qur’an is a typical example):

‘Such wisdom does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil’

Is it possible based upon this, that the Islam is not from God but is a human religion inspired by demonic forces?

I will let the reader decide.

See more on:

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

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

I will respond in writing to Yahya's written words here. My Youtube response to 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.

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.

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?

Sunday, 7 February 2010

I Am Open to Toward Criticism

Yahya Snow posted on a previous thread that I had posted a very dissapointing comment on the blog:

I am not sure exactly what he refers to. I assume it's my reaction to Christians being persecuted.

Unfortunately I deleted Yahya's comment (instead of posting it here) since that particular thread concerned a seminar and those joining it only (I should have clarified that). I guess other issues might have interupted any flow of comments from participants after the seminar, and questions they might burn in with until the next session.

But I thought it appropriate that Yahya should be allowed to criticise me on any errors or faults (that is how we learn and I appreciate criticism), and then I will either defend myself or learn from the correction (or both). We could also clear this on the comment section of any other thread, but I thought: why not simply open a thread on it.


Edition to this thread (This information below is what Yahya referred to) I posted this as a response and reaction to a 12 year old Christian girl who had been raped, tortured and killed by Muslims.

So why do we Christians reaction with distress when we read this? Because this is common in Muslim countries. Muslims react with violence over some cartoons and a Qur'an that supposedly ended up in a toilet. But when we Christian react in distress when a little Christian girl is tortured to death, British Muslim get worried that we react. I find this odd and very very disturbing.

Before I respond to Yahya probably on Youtube, I will simply post the comment I made here:

This makes me absolutely mad

There are thousands of similar cases (in Pakistan alone) involving murder, torture and rape---you will all see, the perpetrators will walk free; Islam teaches that the blood of a Muslim is more valuable than that of a Christian

Its demonic

Well, the revenge belongs to the God, if justice is escaped yet again, fire and torture still awaits on the day of judgements

Let's just consider the facts as they are.

The comment was posted here:

Saturday, 6 February 2010

Seminar: How Can I be Sure About My Faith

For those attending the seminar: ‘How Can I Be Sure About My Faith’ on Wednesday the 10 of February.

We will be looking at two matters:

1. How can a Christian be sure that the religion of Christianity is genuine?

2. How can a Christian be sure that his faith in Christianity is genuine?

We will assess these two questions from three angles:

• The personal angle (I): which elements (evidence) in me and my life provide evidence that what I believe in is genuine?

• The personal angle (2): What evidence in me and my life provides evidence that my faith is genuine?

• The angle of apologetics: Which external elements (historical, scientific, philosophical) are available that confirm that your faith is based upon what is genuine?

My only requirement is that you think these matters through until Wednesday.

God bless


Friday, 5 February 2010

Scientific errors in the Gospels and the Book of Revelation Debunked

This thread includes a dialogue between me and Etheshaam on scientific errors in the New Testament (The Gospels and the Book of Revelation).

Etheshaam wrote:

"The wind bloeth where it listeth."
Jesus says that no one knows which way the wind is blowing. But, of course, he was wrong about that. The direction and speed of the wind are easily measured. (See John 3:8)

Hogan replies:

No, Jesus does not say this all, nor does he indicate it; Jesus is not talking about the speed of wind; Jesus says about the wind: ‘you hear its sound but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going’.

That is actually accurate! You don't always know where the wind comes from, even today with our tools to predict the weather, we are often mistaken about the direction of the wind.

Yet even if you were right, nobody of the time of Jesus had the equipment to measure the speed of wind; hence Jesus is not referring to our society today, but to a society that lacked such equipments; this is both a misrepresentation of the words of Jesus and a ridicolous argument.

Etheshaam wrote:

Jesus holds seven stars in his hand. Of course, it is possible that this is metaphorical. Perhaps. But it is clear from other verses (Revelations 6:13, 8:10, 12:4) that John thought of stars as being small, perhaps even small enough for Jesus to hold in his hand. See Rev1:16)

Hogan replies:

One word of advise: when you deal with the Book of Revelation; keep in mind that you are dealing with both metaphorical and apocalyptic language here; its an art to master each of them. All the references you have brought up are metaphorical; they are not referring to literal stars; just read the passages you quoted. I have spent much time in my life studying the Revelation, and almost memorized the entire book (I love the book of the Revelation); the content of the book is often more metaphorical than most people imagine.

Etheshaam wrote:

The dragon's tail smacks down to earth one third of the stars. To the author of Revelation, the stars are just little lights that can fall to the ground from the sky. (See Revelations 12:4)

Hogan replies:

I suggest that you read the entire context of Revelation chapter 12, in which the explanation is provided. The dragan stands for the devil, not a literary dragon (read the context). Stars were often viewed as angels or in this case of demons, in the Jewish language of metaphors, you will even find Old Testament passages confirming that; in the same chapter you read of the dragon and his angels being thrown down on the earth (again I encourage you to read the context).

Etheshaam wrote:

Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (The smallest seeds are found among the tropical, epiphytic orchids
(Mark 4:31)

Hogan replies:

Jesus is not talking about seeds on a universal level, but ‘them’ the Jews or residents of Galilee and the seeds they planted in their gardens, this is evident if you read the entire context (Mark 4: 31-32). It may come more clearly out in Matthew 13: 32, which includes: ‘your seeds’.

A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.