Calling Christians To Be Verbally Abused - A Diagnosis of Itaz Ahmad

Itaz Ahmad recently attempted to produce a reply to my post, where he rationalizes and tries vindicating his own taqiya with a series of distractions and ad-hominems about me. What is rather odd is that rather than respond to my actual argumentation, and directly address his proven failure to address my rebuttal, Itaz engages in mud slinging and poisoning the well

I will address the red herrings and attacks and hopefully this will cause Mr. Ahmad to come back to the original criticism I (and others) made of his post. I will even issue a challenge to Mr. Ahmad at the end of this post.

Firstly while his post is a fascinating reading project because it gives us insight into the abnormal psychology of his mind, he ironically don't even appear to be successful at his own attempt to slander, lie and abuse.

Secondly he refers to me as a "Christian Extremist". Itaz seems painfully unaware of what a Christian extremist is or does [1]. Even if all of Ijaz Ahmad's allegations were true (I were culpable for fabricating stories, hurling insults and abuse, approving of bizarre sexual fantasies), none of this would characterize anyone (including me) as a Christian Extremist. 

However there is one possible explanation for Ijaz sloppy and degrading use of terms, maybe he is learning from President Obama the commander and chief of the U.S. army and military who classify Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity and Islamophobia as extremism along with Al-Queda [2]. And in this bizarre world (in which Itaz Ahmad appears to subscribe), the Fort Hord Massacre was nothing but "work place violence" [3]. In other words actual Muslim extremism (known in reality as a massacre) is merely a work place "scuffle" but remember we must omit the word "Muslim" since that information is apparently irrelevant [4] But remember everyone: Anders Breivik who was definately a "Christian Islamophobe" engaged in full scale "Christian extremism and terrorism". 

Next Itaz calls me a "Servant of Sam Shamoun". This is not quite accurate. It is true I coined the phrase "Shamounian" and said "I am a Shamounian" this was intended to be part humorous but partially describes the way I feel about Sam, meaning: "I am a student of Sam Shamoun, Sam Shamoun is my beloved teacher". Sam Shamoun has been a wonderful and inspiring influence in my life.

Predictably at this point Itaz may attempt to "undermine" Sam as unethical or deranged and therefore undermine an influence upon me or question how I can respect Sam? However I have already defended Sam and exposed the preposterous slander and lies propagated by Itaz [5]. Don't forget Itaz has abused, insulted and made similar lies about Christian Apologist Samuel Green, Dr. James White, General Han Solo, the Church Fathers and all Christians [6] He even allows Muslim extremists to propagate implied death threats on his Facebook and only deletes these kind of comments to cover his tracks when I expose him [7].  

Itaz forgets that it is not only myself but many others who have participated in interaction with Itaz who have come to the same conclusion after mentally diagnosing Mr. Ahmad as best we can, we see that he reveals symptoms of being psychologically tormented and sexually deranged [8]. More sensible apologists like Dr. James White and Anthony Rogers have therefore ceased interaction due to drawing similar conclusions. 

However, I believe our glorious Triune God loves Itaz more than I can imagine, and I personally like Itaz despite all his mental struggles, therefore I hope Itaz comes to know God before he passes on, and I will not give up on trying to extend my help to Itaz. 

After this, Itaz goes back to his charge of me being a tabloid journalist (that I fabricate things that don't exist) which has already been amply refuted [9] then he attempts to impugn many Christians (including myself) as explicitly endorsing a wild inter-species sexual fetish (specifically prohibited sexual acts) because Ijaz was accused of sounding like a "uni-sexual llama". It is unfathomable to me how Robert who is describing what Mr. Ahmad's voice sounds like is therefore engaging in a "sexual fetish", but this is just one of many reasons Itaz has been diagnosed with a kind of severe perverse sexual derangement, he has also accused other Christians of hitting on him, giving him unwarranted sexual advances and wanting to rape him.

Itaz then states:

"Mark is known to curse a lot, especially if persons disagree with him, in the following photo we can see that he recently abuses, berates, insults a fellow Christian for disagreeing with him"

Firstly to put it on record: I am not a saint, I have no problem insulting anyone regardless of religion, anyone who knows me, knows this including Itaz. However just like everyone else in a formal debate I mostly keep my cool, or in a profitable productive conversation I will be professional.

What is hilarious in the provided picture however, is that Itaz has purposely lowered the screen scrolling button in this chat to avoid showing us just who is using the microphone speaking, and the reason why is painstakingly clear to those of us who were present. The individual who I was addressing was a Jew [10] by the name of Joel Ostein who insisted that God's Word was created by God despite me pointing out that according to his own Torah in Genesis 1, God's Word is the Creator ("Let there be..."), not the created. God's word is the very mechanism God uses to create all creation and is therefore the creator not the created. I pointed out God's word then the must proceed the beginning over six times (in voice and text) to Joel and Itaz posts the part where I finally become exceedingly frustrated with Joel for ignoring the self evident (quite like Itaz himself). Itaz was lying about Joel being a Christian, but then again how is any of this is relevant to him running from me? while he inconsistently scolds Sam Shamoun for "running" from him! No body knows this backward psychology except Itaz.

Itaz next to attempts to justify his running from my response to his slander of Christian scholars translating the Old Testament on the grounds that he is blocked from my private Facebook page and therefore I also have no right to debate him on his more public Facebook page. Now not only is that nothing but a non-sequitor and also an act of cowardice, Itaz omits the complete narrative. 

Firstly whether he is blocked or not on a private page is irrelevant to public debate forums that exist for the express purpose of dialogue, debate and interaction! Secondly it is Itaz who removed me as a friend from his Facebook because at one point I asked him to address my rebuttal to his so called article "refuting" Anthony Rogers (I posted my rebuttal to Ijaz within Rogers original post) [11]. Weeks later he said to me in conversation on PT: "I can't have people who don't support me on my Facebook". It is therefore unambiguously clear even before I had blocked Itaz Ahmad on his private Facebook he was running from me when I was set on his page to friend status. The only reason I ended up subsequently blocking his private Facebook (after he had already removed me) was because he hypocritically accused me of stealing photo's from PW's Facebook while simultaneously posted images of my Facebook on his own blog! He rationalized this to say but "Mark's photos were on public not private", yet when I uploaded PW's photos to my blog not only were they set to public (as can be confirmed by Radical Moderate and Denis Giron), I kindly e-mailed PW showing him I would take them down if he requested me [12]. 

Finally when I said my FB was on private, Itaz misinterpreted me to be thinking I was saying all of my photos on my FB are not on public. I was referring to my account being private. If Itaz wants to arguably say I violated PW's privacy for posting his pictures that were manifest in public, then he must also hypocritically condemn himself for doing the same to me and call himself a thief and a robber.

Now this is the third time Itaz has been transparently caught running from me.

I will list all three times

1. Two years ago he postponed the debate organised between me and himself with Wahuda as moderator on Biblical corruption. His argument was the OT was corrupted because it began as monotheistic and became polytheistic, where as my argument was the OT is corrupted because the OT began as polytheistic and became monotheistic. If I was correct in my proposition, Islam would be false because Islam proposes prophets and scriptures were all originally monotheistic. Itaz gave his word that we would have this debate it never happened [13]
2. This second time I mentioned above he removed me as his friend from Facebook and ran from me instead of addressing the egregious blunders I documented he made in his response to Rogers. 
3. The third time he has now run from me by deleting my comments on his Facebook and failing to cogently defend his claim that Christians have mistranslated Isaiah 9:6

Now I have had alot of patience with Itaz, and we will see once and for all whether he is consistent, he who accuses Sam Shamoun of running from him, will he run from me again in public? 

Ijaz Ahmad I challenge you to at-least one public debate on PT this year (or even two debates to make it even or fair handed), one Christian Topic, one Islamic topic. Do you accept my challenge? 

Now if Itaz Ahmad does not accept my challenge, we know that will be his forth time running, Anyone who has the truth would not be as scared as Itaz has been for the past two years. Itaz I don't view you as the most worthy or equip opponent (unless you study before hand), but I want to debate you because I like you. Despite whatever personal problems you continue to have in your private life, I know you want to know the truth, and the truth will set you free and Jesus is his name. I am a foul, filthy, wicked sinner, but the perfect savior Jesus is not like me Itaz, I promise you no matter what flaws I have, Jesus has none of them. God loves you. God Bless and I will pray for you despite my fallibility as a human.


End Notes:


[1] Christian extremist ideology explained: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Motivation.2C_ideology.2C_and_theology

Christian extremist acts reported: 

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men

[2] http://nation.foxnews.com/religion/2013/04/05/us-army-labeled-evangelicals-catholics-examples-religious-extremism



[3] http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obamas-war-on-the-extremist-christian-threat/

[4] His religious affiliation isn't pertinent information according to the army, military or Obama administration unless he is within the list of extremists in the above picture. Nidal Hasan, was shouting “God is great” in Arabic (Allahu Akhbar) as he proceeded with the slaughter of his unarmed fellow soldiers, but for critical thinkers this is unmotivated by religion and only a work place squabble

[5] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/todays-dividing-line-with-james-white.html

[6] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/a-blank-god-and-its-blank-servant-it.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/04/ijaz-ahmad-insults-and-abuses-christians.html

[7] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/04/ijaz-ahmad-smear-campaign-backfires-yet.html

[8] http://ijazexposed.blogspot.com

[9] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/a-real-mans-story-mystery-revealed-why.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/to-be-or-not-to-be-controversial.html
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2014/03/paul-williams-lost-his-marballs-perhaps.html

[10] It is debatable whether Joel is a Jew or Muslim (but I granted his word in this discussion that he was Jewish)

[11] Some of my posts are under my old pseudonym "Derek Adams" but as you can see they address Itaz's original post and then later in the comment section his latest response to Rogers. http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/03/a-greenhorn-gives-himself-black-eye.html

[12] This can be confirmed by the Christian he is in discussion with "Denis Giron" whom I showed the e-mail I sent to PW offering to take down the pictures if he considered them to be inappropriate. 

[13] http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/06/debate-cancelledpostponed.html

Dr Michael Brown calls reformed/calvinist God "Schizophrenic"

I just finished listening to a debate that took place back in 2010. A debate between reformed theologian Dr. James R White , and arminian theologian  Dr. Michael Brown.

The two radio debates consisted of the classic protestant debate: "Calvinism vs Arminianism"

In the first debate Dr James R White clearly had the advantage in exegeting John 6, Romans 8, 9 and Ephesians 1 since these passages explicitly teach reformed theology. While Dr Brown had to appeal to passages all over the Bible to "substantiate" his interpretation of each particular passage. What I found lacking in Brown was his focus of the exegesis of the chapter right in front of him, here clearly Dr White had the advantage.

A general good rule to apply exegesis with would be "immediate context", "neighboring context" and then "context of the book", "context of other books in the NT", and "context of the culture and time". Clearly Dr Brown had to skip the first two steps and go straight to context of the book first. What is even more problematic was none of the passages he appealed to before John 6 were actually advocating free will, so the fact that he quoted the passages still seems like a red herring.


In the second debate Dr Michael Brown points out the Schizophrenic nature of a God who has two contrary wills. One will his prescriptive direct will. Also a will where he desires all mankind to be saved. And the second will known as the decreed will of God. A will in which God has decreed the exact opposite of his prescriptive will.

My Conclusion

Both men are right. This entails reformed theology is biblical as argued by Dr White, but as argued by Dr Brown the implications of reformed theology are a schizophrenic God.