Just wanna inform the readers of a particular blog that includes almost every video clip, debate, interview, almost everything available on William Lane Craig.
This is an excellent resource centre.
Friday 18 February 2011
Wednesday 16 February 2011
The Qur'an and the Expansion of the Universe
Just to notify the readers of this blog, that I posted an article refuting the claim that the Qur'an supposedly predicts the modern concept of Cosmological expansion; the article can be found on this link:
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/quran-and-expansion-of-universe.html
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2011/02/quran-and-expansion-of-universe.html
Wednesday 2 February 2011
50% want Creation Science to be taught alongside the Darwinian evolution theory
Is Darwins theory of evolution becoming unpopular:
A recent MORI poll found that more than 50% believe that children should be taught about creationism and evolution. Only 21% believe that evolution alone should be taught. The views of the majority are currently ignored.
To suggest otherwise is a fatal career move.
http://www.creationconferences.org.uk/index.php?PHPSESSID=39034524f81694a127f8de9594665c6b
Dawkins might possibly blow his bloodvessels, no wonder he is getting desparate
Actually I feel sorry for the guy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further information on the matter is found on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm
Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.
The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.
Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce ID into science classes in the US.
Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:
• 22% chose creationism
• 17% opted for intelligent design
• 48% selected evolution theory
• and the rest did not know.
Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of living things are so complex that their existence is better explained by an "intelligent process" than natural selection.
Andrew Cohen, editor of Horizon, commented: "I think that this poll represents our first introduction to the British public's views on this issue.
"Most people would have expected the public to go for evolution theory, but it seems there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."
When given a choice of three descriptions for the development of life on Earth, people were asked which one or ones they would like to see taught in science lessons in British schools:
• 44% said creationism should be included
• 41% intelligent design
• 69% wanted evolution as part of the science curriculum.
Participants over 55 were less likely to choose evolution over other groups.
"This really says something about the role of science education in this country and begs us to question how we are teaching evolutionary theory," Andrew Cohen added.
The findings prompted surprise from the scientific community. Lord Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, said: "It is surprising that many should still be sceptical of Darwinian evolution. Darwin proposed his theory nearly 150 years ago, and it is now supported by an immense weight of evidence.
Horizon: A War on Science was broadcast on BBC Two at 2100GMT on Thursday, 26 January 2006
See also an article from 2009:
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/features/The-genius-of-Charles-Darwin.4940624.jp
In fact an article from the Guardian states that only 8 procent believe in the evolution theory (sounds absurd though, these darwinian believers have certainly through academic monopoly managed to twist a fairly higher percentage of our society):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jul/01/evolution
Correcting three common Muslim misconceptions about Christianity
I want to make the readers aware of three common and rather typical Muslim claims purposely promulgated to subvert and undermine the crediblity of Christian faith and character.
It amazes me how these deceivers manage to distort a book and text, which they hardly know nor understand:
Did the Apostles believe Jesus to be insane?
The first relates to the personality of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, verse 21:
'When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind"'
Some Muslims apologists have mistakenly been swayed toward the opinion, that Mark depicts Jesus as a mad personality.
However, noticing that Mark is simply pointing to a sentence uttered by Jesus' own family this claim hardly supports the claim that this constitutes an apostolic perception.
Mark is neither confirming nor stating that Jesus was insane. The passage makes even more sense when perceived within it's context. There was indeed a reason why his family uttered the sentence: 'He is out of his mind'.
Verse 20 clarifies this:
'Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat'
Hence the 'He is out of his mind' utterence was not a specific reaction to Jesus as a person, but rather it records a blaze reference, to an occasion in which he set aside his physical need to minister to the people.
Jesus portrays Christianity is a violent religion
A second claim relates to the judgement of the nations; when Jesus in his second coming brings judgement upon his enemies.
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them her and kill them in front of me (Luke 19: 27).
Muslim apologists have ignorantly purported the passage to portray a violent Christianity. However, the passage ascends the Christian religion.
Firstly, the passage belongs to the parable of the 'Ten Minas', and does not reveal direct description of an event.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the parable includes Christians, e.g. 'the three servants', those executing the judgement appear to be a group distinguished from these and referred to as ‘those standing by’.
Finally, the parable does not refer to a Christian event, but a futurist, imminent and divine judgement; the closest analogy is Luke 9: 26:
‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels’.
Both Mark and Matthew relate to this event as a time of future judgement:
The Son of Man will send out His angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of sins (Matthew 13: 41-42)
As in Luke 19 these angels executing the judgement are distinguished from the actual servants (Jesus followers), about which Matthew records Jesus saying the following:
‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear’ (Matthew 13: 43)
These Muslim apologists seem to confuse between Christianity on earth in the Christian era future and divine judgement.
Did Paul the Apostle encourage deception?
A third misconception is rooted in the Muslim failure to understand a Pauline saying in Philippians 1: 17-18:
'The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing they can stir up trouble for me, while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.'
Some Muslim apologists reiterate that Paul is encouraging Christians to utilize deceptive tactics and lies in their propagation of the Christian message. However, this is not what Paul is indicating.
Paul refers to certain individuals who preach the Gospel from a wrong motive; he is not describing deception or lies; but rejoices that at least the Christian message spreads among the people; after all, it’s the Christian message, the response of the listener and God who saves and transforms the sinner, the messenger itself does not account for that.
It amazes me how these deceivers manage to distort a book and text, which they hardly know nor understand:
Did the Apostles believe Jesus to be insane?
The first relates to the personality of Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, verse 21:
'When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind"'
Some Muslims apologists have mistakenly been swayed toward the opinion, that Mark depicts Jesus as a mad personality.
However, noticing that Mark is simply pointing to a sentence uttered by Jesus' own family this claim hardly supports the claim that this constitutes an apostolic perception.
Mark is neither confirming nor stating that Jesus was insane. The passage makes even more sense when perceived within it's context. There was indeed a reason why his family uttered the sentence: 'He is out of his mind'.
Verse 20 clarifies this:
'Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat'
Hence the 'He is out of his mind' utterence was not a specific reaction to Jesus as a person, but rather it records a blaze reference, to an occasion in which he set aside his physical need to minister to the people.
Jesus portrays Christianity is a violent religion
A second claim relates to the judgement of the nations; when Jesus in his second coming brings judgement upon his enemies.
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them her and kill them in front of me (Luke 19: 27).
Muslim apologists have ignorantly purported the passage to portray a violent Christianity. However, the passage ascends the Christian religion.
Firstly, the passage belongs to the parable of the 'Ten Minas', and does not reveal direct description of an event.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the parable includes Christians, e.g. 'the three servants', those executing the judgement appear to be a group distinguished from these and referred to as ‘those standing by’.
Finally, the parable does not refer to a Christian event, but a futurist, imminent and divine judgement; the closest analogy is Luke 9: 26:
‘If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels’.
Both Mark and Matthew relate to this event as a time of future judgement:
The Son of Man will send out His angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of sins (Matthew 13: 41-42)
As in Luke 19 these angels executing the judgement are distinguished from the actual servants (Jesus followers), about which Matthew records Jesus saying the following:
‘Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear’ (Matthew 13: 43)
These Muslim apologists seem to confuse between Christianity on earth in the Christian era future and divine judgement.
Did Paul the Apostle encourage deception?
A third misconception is rooted in the Muslim failure to understand a Pauline saying in Philippians 1: 17-18:
'The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing they can stir up trouble for me, while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.'
Some Muslim apologists reiterate that Paul is encouraging Christians to utilize deceptive tactics and lies in their propagation of the Christian message. However, this is not what Paul is indicating.
Paul refers to certain individuals who preach the Gospel from a wrong motive; he is not describing deception or lies; but rejoices that at least the Christian message spreads among the people; after all, it’s the Christian message, the response of the listener and God who saves and transforms the sinner, the messenger itself does not account for that.
Thursday 20 January 2011
Response to Yahya Snow: Cancellation of a Debate
The first matter of worry is Yahya’s icon, that somehow symbolizes this article, namely: ‘The Wedding Crashers’. It surprises me that a Muslim that repels jinns out of his own bedroom reveals insight into such a disgustingly immoral piece of a movie! Have you actually watched this film? My wife and I began watching this movie on television and fairly quickly changed to another channel. I would probably refrain from advertising such garbage on my blog, neither would I utilize it as a icon.
Anyway, as before, Yahya is not (or was not) willing to link to my blog, consequently hoping that his readers fail to grasp the full picture of my article; this is not the first time, hence the reason for my sentence: ‘playing dirty’, the use of ‘The wedding crashers’ only confirms this.
Yahya is presenting this entire matter as a farce.
Notice: did I actually conclude that Yahya Snow was behind the cancellation? This is a vital pre-insight prior to the reading of both articles. In fact Yahya himself enforces this particular point when he writes:
‘he has alleged I (little old Yahya Snow) could have been responsible...’
Exactly, ‘could have been responsible’ is probably a more accurate response; that’s what I concluded.
Yahya Snow writes:
This Yahya Snow guy is quite special; he can "cancel debates" without knowing. Wow, just wow!
Could everybody put aside their paranoia for a second – I never knew this “debate” was even arranged, never mind me being the one responsible for its cancellation! [Mr Hagbard is in red]
Hogan replies:
The reason why this will not work, is because Anjum Ahmed was aware of my planned debate with Ayaz prior to October, which was cancelled from my side. Yet I am not certain as to the reason why the particular debate had to be cancelled, the Muslims failed after two months of my continues emailing to arrange the venue and provide me with details despite our agreement over a date.
What I am saying is: in September-October something occurred that caused the otherwise arranged debate in October not to occur. In October we agree to rearrange another debate, which leads to the scenario this January.
In each case the progress, lacks communication from the Muslim side, and ends in some kind of scenario, in this case to shift the debate to another opponent, even at the last minute, without informing the original debater, despite my continuous communication about the program and details of the debate---suspicious???
Yahya Snow writes:
So Hogan deducts this Anjum Ahmed is me because his “writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow??? If I was to email Hogan I would use MY email address and identify myself. I have no idea who this "Anjum" chap is. Does he even exist?
Hogan replies:
You are raising good points: who is this Anjum Ahmed? Does he exist? Why would you email me, not using your own email address?
Can I speculate some more? Is it possible that you are the only Muslim I know who has focused on the ‘brit thing’, such as your youtube response, in which you use the phrase: ‘a fellow brit indeed’. This first thing popping up in my mind is: Yahya Snow.
I don’t know, is your real name Anjum Ahmed? Is Anjum Ahmed possibly a cover name using a cover email address? Why not? People do that?
Yahya Snow wrote:
"Campaign"? Really? Nobody told me everybody “knows” I have been “playing dirty”. Paranoid, just a little?
Hogan replies:
Do I have to get into details? Well in my experience:
1) you write a response to me, you even upload an entire youtube rebuttal,
2) without linking to my actual writing, without informing people what the matter was all about. 3) Consequently when I inform readers about the link on your blog, you ban me and remove my posts.
Is this playing dirty or not?
Yahya wrote:
??? So this bloke (if he even exists) used a phrase I have used and Mr Hagbard’s mind began working overtime. Sad. Is it not possible for others to use the “fellow Brit” phrase? Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase? Is it not possible for myself to have enough concealment ability in order to drop a potentially incriminating phrase – if the email was from me?
Hogan replies:
So you see the potential possibility: ‘Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase...’ Exactly, is it not pretty obvious? Is it really a matter of incriminating? Perhaps the ‘fellow brit’ thing simply reveals your personality, such as: I should focus more on what we have in common as ‘fellow brits’ rather than me being a Christian. That’s how I red you in the very beginning of your writing. Both these cases reveal that even you would view the matter suspicious!
Yahya wrote:
“Propagandist”?? That’s not very “Christ-like”.
Hogan replies:
You don’t play that game with me. I view it this way: If you murder, you are a murderer, if you commit adultery you are an adulterer. And in your case: if you engage in propaganda, your are a propagandist. Jesus would do the very same thing. We have excellent evidence of that!
Yahya Snow writes:
Actually, its something Mr Shamoun would spout. Does this mean Mr Hagbard is Mr Shamoun as they have used a similar turn of phrase…according to the paranoid logic of Mr Hagbard it certainly does.
Hogan replies:
Not an excellent comparison
Yahya Snow replies:
Mr Hagbard would be advised to STOP speculating and START investigating the issues before presenting such outlandish conjecture.
Hogan replies:
That is exactly what I am doing. As to Anjum Ahmed, you have already indicated that my deduction was not completely way off.
Yahya Snow:
I suggest Mr Hagbard emails “Ayaz” immediately and finds out as to the real reason why this debate was called off. Once he does this, I expect a public apology for his outrageous aspersions.
Hogan replies:
When these sort of things occur, personal communication is no longer the option, you have been downplayed and tricked already; trust is no longer an option; this is when you go public, firstly to inform about the cancellation, then to stir up a debate about the actual cause of the predicament.
Yahya snow replied:
NOTE: If I was bent on “cancelling” a debate in Birmingham it would not be too difficult for me to get hold of the organisers and ask them to reconsider – I would hardly require the underhand tactics Mr Hagbard’s paranoia is intimating. Furthermore, if the said debate was cancelled by me it would certainly have been mentioned on this blog or via email to Mr Hagbard – I try to operate in an upfront fashion in my blogging of apologetics.
Hogan replies:
Again perhaps you are simply applying ‘taqqya’, perhaps not? How am I supposed to know? As I pointed out: a Muslim, employing similar terminology as Yahya Snow, who is already suspected of an attempt to cause reason for cancelling another debate, emails me, asking for the email address of my opponent—you yourself treated such as suspicious.
Hence the reason, as I already pointed out, that I am inclined to believe that Yahya Snow or someone else has some involvement in the cancellation.
Yahya Snow replied:
Mr Hagbard seems to have taken a page out from the book of Mr Wood. Mr Wood had a debate cancelled and he began to lash out at everybody and anybody. WITHOUT any proof at all he accused little old Yahya Snow (that’s me), an extremist group (Revolution Muslim) and Abdullah al Andalusi (and who knows who else was accused) publicly for such a cancellation WITHOUT any evidence but merely based on his over active mind. This is precisely what Mr Hagbard is doing here.
Hogan replies:
In your world, Yahya, a simple denial or a claim, sorts out every matter and difficulty-seems obvious from your writing.
I suggest the reader deduces the matter himself from the communication between MDI and Acts17 on the answeringmuslim blog.
Yahya Snow replied:
I WAS EVEN ACCUSED OF BEING THIS BIRMINGHAM “AYAZ” BY SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET (IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT IT WAS MR HAGBARD WHO THOUGHT I WAS THE BIRMINGHAM AYAZ!!!!). Welcome to the odd world of Christian internet apologetics. Wow, just wow!
Hogan replies:
Can you link us to where I actually accused you of being Ayaz? Maybe I did and fail to remember, but can show us where?
I remember that I did raise the question? Raising a question is not the same as accusing! Or is it?
Yahya Snow replied:
The Holy Spirit
When Christians behave and reason in such a fashion whilst simultaneoulsy claiming they have the Holy Spirit (they believe this is a person of God) dwelling within them, you just have to wonder as to the subtle manner in which they negate their beliefs. Think about it.
Hogan replies:
The Holy Spirit actually exposes falsehood. Me raising suspicion about you attempting to cancel a debate, does not exonerate me from the Holy Spirit?
You are way off man!!!
Yahya Snow wrote:
It was not me. The New Year has left My Hagbard more than a little paranoid. I EXPECT a public apology from Mr Hagbard soon – email the organisers and get confirmation it had nothing to do with me, pronto!
Hogan replies:
So you want an apology for having accused you of causing a debate cancellation.
Let me analyze what I actually wrote, before you take it that far; as usual you badly misrepresent information:
I wrote:
‘Perhaps the cause of the pull-out relates to such matters’
(Notice that my first alternative is due to Ayaz’ possible inability to debate; then I move to alternative two:)
‘However, earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc.
Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeard to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team’
(notice: I present this as an alternative, not as a direct accusation)
‘This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute, and even without warning. A move that resembles the sudden cancellation between Muslims and Acts17 earlier this year’
(notice, here that my alternative above, is speculation from my side, I do admit that. I never stated that Yahya Snow cancelled my debate, but I did state that I am personally inclined to think that Yahya Snow may have stirred something up. Notice also, my statement: ‘Yahya Snow or possibly others’, hence my suspicion is not solely directed toward Yahya)
There are a number of points to consider here:
1) I state that there is alternative one and two
2) I state that alternative two drives me to view the possibility, that e.g. Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow
3) I state that my second alternative is nevertheless speculative
4) I state that my second alternative may not even include Yahya
To put it lightly, Yahya is driving the entire matter out of proportion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information:
I mentioned above my suspicion that Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow, based on his phrase 'my fellow brit' related to this exact phrase in an attempt to refute me on youtube.
I mentioned that I found a particular trend repeatedly in the early writings of Yahya Snow, this whole thing of me being British and hence having to behave like a british; the primary focus was on being a 'Brit'.
Here is another evidence from a post written by Yahya Snow early last year:
'This is not the way I expect a British Christian to behave,yet alone a Christian who has resided in Bradford, Birmingham and London owing to their respective Muslim populations I would have thought you would have gone beyond such a level of discourse and thought.'
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html
I am still fairly convinced that Yahya Snow is Anjum Ahmed or Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow in disguise. I still have a suspicion about Mr Snow's possible interference to cancel a debate, but as I clarified, that is still speculation from my side.
Now I understand why Yahya Snow is ashamed of revealing his face, I would be too.
Keep in mind Yahya Snow, when it comes to serious, high level interaction within online debating, I give very little for someone who hides himself behind a computer, and I don't believe these 'fellow brits' are gona touch even a hair on your head.
At least you cant brand us Christian debaters who reveal our names or faces, in similar ways, we defend truth and expose falsehood despite the danger we expose ourselves and our families to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Further additions:
Earlier this year I posted an entire thread on Yahya Snow’s fear to reveal the link to my blog:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-suggestion-to-yahya-snow.html
My article informed the readers that I deplore Yahya Snow’s responses which are presenting the information he attempts to refute in wrong context. I pointed out that Yahya Snow even fears revealing the original source so as to avoid revealing his deception to his readers, hence his decision to avoid any link to my blog.
Yahya Snow’s latest refutation (an embarrasing attempt) revealed the same deceptive behaviour, to which I responeded and challenged Yahya:
‘I notice that you are still scared of providing a link to my blog. What are you afraid of? That Muslims will actually read the actual source I find you distorting reality?'
To which Yahya Snow replies:
Being "afraid" to link to your blog? Not really!
I don't have the time to compose another blog post in response to your next post. Please respond via comments on my/your blog or via email.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7465988133223323978&postID=3874882737607321105
Hence Yahya can’t reveal to his readers the original source since he has no time to respond. Last time I commented on his blog my comments were all blocked.
Anyway, as before, Yahya is not (or was not) willing to link to my blog, consequently hoping that his readers fail to grasp the full picture of my article; this is not the first time, hence the reason for my sentence: ‘playing dirty’, the use of ‘The wedding crashers’ only confirms this.
Yahya is presenting this entire matter as a farce.
Notice: did I actually conclude that Yahya Snow was behind the cancellation? This is a vital pre-insight prior to the reading of both articles. In fact Yahya himself enforces this particular point when he writes:
‘he has alleged I (little old Yahya Snow) could have been responsible...’
Exactly, ‘could have been responsible’ is probably a more accurate response; that’s what I concluded.
Yahya Snow writes:
This Yahya Snow guy is quite special; he can "cancel debates" without knowing. Wow, just wow!
Could everybody put aside their paranoia for a second – I never knew this “debate” was even arranged, never mind me being the one responsible for its cancellation! [Mr Hagbard is in red]
Hogan replies:
The reason why this will not work, is because Anjum Ahmed was aware of my planned debate with Ayaz prior to October, which was cancelled from my side. Yet I am not certain as to the reason why the particular debate had to be cancelled, the Muslims failed after two months of my continues emailing to arrange the venue and provide me with details despite our agreement over a date.
What I am saying is: in September-October something occurred that caused the otherwise arranged debate in October not to occur. In October we agree to rearrange another debate, which leads to the scenario this January.
In each case the progress, lacks communication from the Muslim side, and ends in some kind of scenario, in this case to shift the debate to another opponent, even at the last minute, without informing the original debater, despite my continuous communication about the program and details of the debate---suspicious???
Yahya Snow writes:
So Hogan deducts this Anjum Ahmed is me because his “writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow??? If I was to email Hogan I would use MY email address and identify myself. I have no idea who this "Anjum" chap is. Does he even exist?
Hogan replies:
You are raising good points: who is this Anjum Ahmed? Does he exist? Why would you email me, not using your own email address?
Can I speculate some more? Is it possible that you are the only Muslim I know who has focused on the ‘brit thing’, such as your youtube response, in which you use the phrase: ‘a fellow brit indeed’. This first thing popping up in my mind is: Yahya Snow.
I don’t know, is your real name Anjum Ahmed? Is Anjum Ahmed possibly a cover name using a cover email address? Why not? People do that?
Yahya Snow wrote:
"Campaign"? Really? Nobody told me everybody “knows” I have been “playing dirty”. Paranoid, just a little?
Hogan replies:
Do I have to get into details? Well in my experience:
1) you write a response to me, you even upload an entire youtube rebuttal,
2) without linking to my actual writing, without informing people what the matter was all about. 3) Consequently when I inform readers about the link on your blog, you ban me and remove my posts.
Is this playing dirty or not?
Yahya wrote:
??? So this bloke (if he even exists) used a phrase I have used and Mr Hagbard’s mind began working overtime. Sad. Is it not possible for others to use the “fellow Brit” phrase? Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase? Is it not possible for myself to have enough concealment ability in order to drop a potentially incriminating phrase – if the email was from me?
Hogan replies:
So you see the potential possibility: ‘Is it not conceivable that somebody wanted to misdirect Mr Hagbard via the usage of this phrase...’ Exactly, is it not pretty obvious? Is it really a matter of incriminating? Perhaps the ‘fellow brit’ thing simply reveals your personality, such as: I should focus more on what we have in common as ‘fellow brits’ rather than me being a Christian. That’s how I red you in the very beginning of your writing. Both these cases reveal that even you would view the matter suspicious!
Yahya wrote:
“Propagandist”?? That’s not very “Christ-like”.
Hogan replies:
You don’t play that game with me. I view it this way: If you murder, you are a murderer, if you commit adultery you are an adulterer. And in your case: if you engage in propaganda, your are a propagandist. Jesus would do the very same thing. We have excellent evidence of that!
Yahya Snow writes:
Actually, its something Mr Shamoun would spout. Does this mean Mr Hagbard is Mr Shamoun as they have used a similar turn of phrase…according to the paranoid logic of Mr Hagbard it certainly does.
Hogan replies:
Not an excellent comparison
Yahya Snow replies:
Mr Hagbard would be advised to STOP speculating and START investigating the issues before presenting such outlandish conjecture.
Hogan replies:
That is exactly what I am doing. As to Anjum Ahmed, you have already indicated that my deduction was not completely way off.
Yahya Snow:
I suggest Mr Hagbard emails “Ayaz” immediately and finds out as to the real reason why this debate was called off. Once he does this, I expect a public apology for his outrageous aspersions.
Hogan replies:
When these sort of things occur, personal communication is no longer the option, you have been downplayed and tricked already; trust is no longer an option; this is when you go public, firstly to inform about the cancellation, then to stir up a debate about the actual cause of the predicament.
Yahya snow replied:
NOTE: If I was bent on “cancelling” a debate in Birmingham it would not be too difficult for me to get hold of the organisers and ask them to reconsider – I would hardly require the underhand tactics Mr Hagbard’s paranoia is intimating. Furthermore, if the said debate was cancelled by me it would certainly have been mentioned on this blog or via email to Mr Hagbard – I try to operate in an upfront fashion in my blogging of apologetics.
Hogan replies:
Again perhaps you are simply applying ‘taqqya’, perhaps not? How am I supposed to know? As I pointed out: a Muslim, employing similar terminology as Yahya Snow, who is already suspected of an attempt to cause reason for cancelling another debate, emails me, asking for the email address of my opponent—you yourself treated such as suspicious.
Hence the reason, as I already pointed out, that I am inclined to believe that Yahya Snow or someone else has some involvement in the cancellation.
Yahya Snow replied:
Mr Hagbard seems to have taken a page out from the book of Mr Wood. Mr Wood had a debate cancelled and he began to lash out at everybody and anybody. WITHOUT any proof at all he accused little old Yahya Snow (that’s me), an extremist group (Revolution Muslim) and Abdullah al Andalusi (and who knows who else was accused) publicly for such a cancellation WITHOUT any evidence but merely based on his over active mind. This is precisely what Mr Hagbard is doing here.
Hogan replies:
In your world, Yahya, a simple denial or a claim, sorts out every matter and difficulty-seems obvious from your writing.
I suggest the reader deduces the matter himself from the communication between MDI and Acts17 on the answeringmuslim blog.
Yahya Snow replied:
I WAS EVEN ACCUSED OF BEING THIS BIRMINGHAM “AYAZ” BY SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET (IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECT IT WAS MR HAGBARD WHO THOUGHT I WAS THE BIRMINGHAM AYAZ!!!!). Welcome to the odd world of Christian internet apologetics. Wow, just wow!
Hogan replies:
Can you link us to where I actually accused you of being Ayaz? Maybe I did and fail to remember, but can show us where?
I remember that I did raise the question? Raising a question is not the same as accusing! Or is it?
Yahya Snow replied:
The Holy Spirit
When Christians behave and reason in such a fashion whilst simultaneoulsy claiming they have the Holy Spirit (they believe this is a person of God) dwelling within them, you just have to wonder as to the subtle manner in which they negate their beliefs. Think about it.
Hogan replies:
The Holy Spirit actually exposes falsehood. Me raising suspicion about you attempting to cancel a debate, does not exonerate me from the Holy Spirit?
You are way off man!!!
Yahya Snow wrote:
It was not me. The New Year has left My Hagbard more than a little paranoid. I EXPECT a public apology from Mr Hagbard soon – email the organisers and get confirmation it had nothing to do with me, pronto!
Hogan replies:
So you want an apology for having accused you of causing a debate cancellation.
Let me analyze what I actually wrote, before you take it that far; as usual you badly misrepresent information:
I wrote:
‘Perhaps the cause of the pull-out relates to such matters’
(Notice that my first alternative is due to Ayaz’ possible inability to debate; then I move to alternative two:)
‘However, earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc.
Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeard to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team’
(notice: I present this as an alternative, not as a direct accusation)
‘This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute, and even without warning. A move that resembles the sudden cancellation between Muslims and Acts17 earlier this year’
(notice, here that my alternative above, is speculation from my side, I do admit that. I never stated that Yahya Snow cancelled my debate, but I did state that I am personally inclined to think that Yahya Snow may have stirred something up. Notice also, my statement: ‘Yahya Snow or possibly others’, hence my suspicion is not solely directed toward Yahya)
There are a number of points to consider here:
1) I state that there is alternative one and two
2) I state that alternative two drives me to view the possibility, that e.g. Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow
3) I state that my second alternative is nevertheless speculative
4) I state that my second alternative may not even include Yahya
To put it lightly, Yahya is driving the entire matter out of proportion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional information:
I mentioned above my suspicion that Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow, based on his phrase 'my fellow brit' related to this exact phrase in an attempt to refute me on youtube.
I mentioned that I found a particular trend repeatedly in the early writings of Yahya Snow, this whole thing of me being British and hence having to behave like a british; the primary focus was on being a 'Brit'.
Here is another evidence from a post written by Yahya Snow early last year:
'This is not the way I expect a British Christian to behave,yet alone a Christian who has resided in Bradford, Birmingham and London owing to their respective Muslim populations I would have thought you would have gone beyond such a level of discourse and thought.'
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-am-open-to-learn.html
I am still fairly convinced that Yahya Snow is Anjum Ahmed or Anjum Ahmed is Yahya Snow in disguise. I still have a suspicion about Mr Snow's possible interference to cancel a debate, but as I clarified, that is still speculation from my side.
Now I understand why Yahya Snow is ashamed of revealing his face, I would be too.
Keep in mind Yahya Snow, when it comes to serious, high level interaction within online debating, I give very little for someone who hides himself behind a computer, and I don't believe these 'fellow brits' are gona touch even a hair on your head.
At least you cant brand us Christian debaters who reveal our names or faces, in similar ways, we defend truth and expose falsehood despite the danger we expose ourselves and our families to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Further additions:
Earlier this year I posted an entire thread on Yahya Snow’s fear to reveal the link to my blog:
http://christianityresponse.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-suggestion-to-yahya-snow.html
My article informed the readers that I deplore Yahya Snow’s responses which are presenting the information he attempts to refute in wrong context. I pointed out that Yahya Snow even fears revealing the original source so as to avoid revealing his deception to his readers, hence his decision to avoid any link to my blog.
Yahya Snow’s latest refutation (an embarrasing attempt) revealed the same deceptive behaviour, to which I responeded and challenged Yahya:
‘I notice that you are still scared of providing a link to my blog. What are you afraid of? That Muslims will actually read the actual source I find you distorting reality?'
To which Yahya Snow replies:
Being "afraid" to link to your blog? Not really!
I don't have the time to compose another blog post in response to your next post. Please respond via comments on my/your blog or via email.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7465988133223323978&postID=3874882737607321105
Hence Yahya can’t reveal to his readers the original source since he has no time to respond. Last time I commented on his blog my comments were all blocked.
Another Christian-Muslim Debate Cancelled
I regret to say, that my debate with Ayaz on the 22 Januar in Birmingham has yet once more been cancelled.
I am not certain about the exact reason.
The Muslims were responsible for the venue, and the date was as I am aware of decided between our Muslims in Birmingham and my team in the UK.
By pure luck I contacted the Muslims about the progress of the arrangements and was chocked when informed that the venue, date and debate was still in progress, but against another Christian brother.
If I had not randomly contacted the Muslims, I would still have bought my flight ticked, used a significant amount of money for nothing.
A similar incident indeed occured related to David Wood and Nabeel this year, when the Islamic group MDI in UK managed to urge Islamic debaters in the US to cancel debates with Acts17 last year. A lot of money and time was wasted:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/05/abdullah-al-andalusi-does-mdi-need-new.html
There is suspicion that Ayaz and his team in Birmingham are running. If that is the case, I don't mind, but I wish they would have informed me about this sudden move in reasonably good time.
In a dialogoue between me and Ayaz (earlier this year) over 'the talking ant' in the Qur'an, it became rather obvious that Ayaz did not appear significantly able to deal with indepth debating (the dialogue can be read here):
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/ant-in-bible-and-quran-dialogue-between.html
Perhaps the cause of the pull-out relates to such matters.
However, earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc.
Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeard to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team.
This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute, and even without warning. A move that resembles the sudden cancellation between Muslims and Acts17 earlier this year.
This is the eamil I received from this Muslim, which I believe is Yahya Snow (notice the fellow Brit thing, a sentence I have only heard from this particular propagandaist):
First email:
Peace be with you Hogan
Can I have Ayaz's email address, I can't find it anywhere!!!
I wanted to talk to him about a private issue. He doesn't know me. I have to ask him some questions.
Thank you my fellow Brit.
Anjum
Second email:
Peace be with you Hogan
Can I have Ayaz's email address, I can't find it anywhere!!!
I wanted to talk to him about a private issue. He doesn't know me. I have to ask him some questions.
Thank you my fellow Brit.
Anjum
Since I do not share email addresses online I obviously declined.
I can't say that I am fully aware of full reason for the sudden decision of the Birmingham Dawah team to pull out. They have complained about matters related to the question-answer part of the event, which as far as I was told was a matter clarified. But I find this new trend worrying, especially when so much money and so many people are involved. I should have been informed about this sudden change of decision well ahead of time and not through my own initiative.
I am not certain about the exact reason.
The Muslims were responsible for the venue, and the date was as I am aware of decided between our Muslims in Birmingham and my team in the UK.
By pure luck I contacted the Muslims about the progress of the arrangements and was chocked when informed that the venue, date and debate was still in progress, but against another Christian brother.
If I had not randomly contacted the Muslims, I would still have bought my flight ticked, used a significant amount of money for nothing.
A similar incident indeed occured related to David Wood and Nabeel this year, when the Islamic group MDI in UK managed to urge Islamic debaters in the US to cancel debates with Acts17 last year. A lot of money and time was wasted:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/05/abdullah-al-andalusi-does-mdi-need-new.html
There is suspicion that Ayaz and his team in Birmingham are running. If that is the case, I don't mind, but I wish they would have informed me about this sudden move in reasonably good time.
In a dialogoue between me and Ayaz (earlier this year) over 'the talking ant' in the Qur'an, it became rather obvious that Ayaz did not appear significantly able to deal with indepth debating (the dialogue can be read here):
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/ant-in-bible-and-quran-dialogue-between.html
Perhaps the cause of the pull-out relates to such matters.
However, earlier this year a certain Muslim, by the name Anjum Ahmed, whose writing style resembled that of Yahya Snow, attempted several times to obtain information about Ayaz, such as emails, etc.
Everyone knows that Yahya Snow has been playing dirty since the very start, and appeard to launch a campaign to cancel debates between Muslims and the Acts17 team.
This is speculation from my side but I am inclined to think that Yahya Snow or possibly others indeed managed to influence the Birmingham Dawah team to back out at the very last minute, and even without warning. A move that resembles the sudden cancellation between Muslims and Acts17 earlier this year.
This is the eamil I received from this Muslim, which I believe is Yahya Snow (notice the fellow Brit thing, a sentence I have only heard from this particular propagandaist):
First email:
Peace be with you Hogan
Can I have Ayaz's email address, I can't find it anywhere!!!
I wanted to talk to him about a private issue. He doesn't know me. I have to ask him some questions.
Thank you my fellow Brit.
Anjum
Second email:
Peace be with you Hogan
Can I have Ayaz's email address, I can't find it anywhere!!!
I wanted to talk to him about a private issue. He doesn't know me. I have to ask him some questions.
Thank you my fellow Brit.
Anjum
Since I do not share email addresses online I obviously declined.
I can't say that I am fully aware of full reason for the sudden decision of the Birmingham Dawah team to pull out. They have complained about matters related to the question-answer part of the event, which as far as I was told was a matter clarified. But I find this new trend worrying, especially when so much money and so many people are involved. I should have been informed about this sudden change of decision well ahead of time and not through my own initiative.
Sorry for my recent Absence
I want to apologize for my absence the last six months. We have moved into a rather significant ministry (still within the field of apologetics), which has demanded significant time to adapt into a new administration, different topics and a lot of research and teaching.
I intend to resume my writing on my blogs and the answeringmuslims.org blog in nearest future.
Be ready for a whole lot more information on these blogs the next months.
I also agreed upon a written debate with Ehteshaam Gulam on the 'death of Jesus'. Sorry for my delay brother Gulam. Do contact me if you read this.
God bless
I intend to resume my writing on my blogs and the answeringmuslims.org blog in nearest future.
Be ready for a whole lot more information on these blogs the next months.
I also agreed upon a written debate with Ehteshaam Gulam on the 'death of Jesus'. Sorry for my delay brother Gulam. Do contact me if you read this.
God bless
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)