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.