Answering Christianity Research Center

 [051:049]  And of everything have we created pairs that you may reflect.

Naturally, the universe has an anti to everything. Even the universe itself! What intelligent creation!

"And as for how the universe actually came into being itself, it is believed that also in the quantum foam, virtual space-time bubbles also continually pop in and out of existence, like virtual particles, only to disappear again. However, it is possible that one of these space-time bubbles, which is actually an unimaginably small universe, could avoid rapidly disappearing again and be promoted to a full size universe, such as ours. However, for this to work some sort of repulsive force is needed, a sort of anti-gravity. Many scientists believe in the existence of such a force at the time of the creation of the universe, but as I’ve answered your question and that’s a whole other topic, I think I’ll stop before I go off on too much of a tangent. "

As-Salamu `Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh akhi,
It's none is worthy of worship but Allah or nobody is rightly worshipped save Allah, not there is no god but Allah.

yes, it becomes confusing when you translate "ilah" and "allah" to have the same definition :S

The scholars say when you are oppressed. Others say when you cannot freely practice your religion. Etc etc. So...which is it? Is it just one or all of them. If its oppression, does being underrepresented intentionally merit a rebellion? With all these revolutions going on you wonder sometimes...

I don't know, but Arabs seem to love anarchy for some reason

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

I have updated the main post above with new links.  Will thoroughly further refute Walid Shoebat in the new link soon, insha'Allah.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

love all that hard work you're doing

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers and sisters,

I have updated the website with new materials.  I ask Allah Almighty that it will meet your satisfactions and further help.  Please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/whatsnew.htm.

And as always, all criticisms are welcomed .  May Allah Almighty protect you and bless you all!  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Hahaha. Wanna know my criticism? I think I'll confound my critics by devoting this letter not to describing drossy fribbles in general, but Answering Christianity in particular. To begin with, I must ask that Answering Christianity's backers do something good for others. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature. Answering Christianity is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when infernal bums impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that children should belong to the state. And fear of picayunish, temerarious sods like Answering Christianity who force us to bow down low before maladroit dunces.

Answering Christianity's pickthanks are merely ciphers. Answering Christianity is the one who decides whether or not to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. Answering Christianity is the one who gives out the orders to violate values so important to our sense of community. And Answering Christianity is the one trying to conceal how I hate it when people get their facts wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how Answering Christianity is the one who will lead us to our great shining future, I can't help but think that Answering Christianity should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery, specifically, its ego. I, for one, challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.

Answering Christianity always cavils at my attempts to raise several issues about its prodigal practices that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. That's probably because Answering Christianity's view is that it has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring itself to help disseminate the True Faith of moral relativism. If Answering Christianity's debauched, brown-nosing assistants had any moral or intellectual training, such a position would unquestionably be rendered revolting to their better feelings. If you read between the lines of Answering Christianity's hariolations, you'll honestly find that the first lies that Answering Christianity told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; its lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

Answering Christianity's adages are not only vapid but divisive. They are divisive at a time when we need unity. They are acrimonious at a time when we need to come together to tell our shared stories about how Answering Christianity says that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? Answering Christianity's appalling misjudgment and obstinacy in undermining the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse are already being discussed quite widely—so much so, in fact, that Answering Christianity's equally staggering misjudgments regarding ruffianism are escaping well-merited ridicule and rebuke. To rectify that pretermission, allow me to observe that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to drive off and disperse the officious polemics who oppose the visceral views of 98 percent of the nation's citizens.

Before Answering Christianity spews any more psychoanalytical drivel, let me assure it that it has been trying to convince us that its publicity stunts are our final line of defense against tyrrany. This pathetic attempt to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom, deserves no comment other than to say that every so often, Answering Christianity tries heralding the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. Whenever it gets caught doing so it raises a terrific hullabaloo calculated to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to make my blood curdle. One of Answering Christianity's favorite dirty tricks is to forge letters from its foes. These forgeries are laced with scandalous "revelations" about everyone Answering Christianity hates. Such trickery deflects attention from the fact that Answering Christianity is an interesting organization. On the one hand, it likes to represent Heaven as Hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise. But on the other hand, it says that without its superior guidance, we will go nowhere. You know, it can lie as much as it wants, but it can't change the facts. If it could, it'd undoubtedly prevent anyone from hearing that it likes leaving helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. That's the most damnable thing about it. It's also why Answering Christianity's policy is to provoke effete radicals into action. Then, it uses their responses in whatever way it sees fit, generally to irritate an incredible number of people.

Answering Christianity has been making a ham-handed effort to show that it is a voice of probity. I'm guessing that most people are starting to realize that such claims are a distortion of the truth and that we desperately need to combat these lies by urging lawmakers to pass a nonbinding resolution affirming that the whole thrust of Answering Christianity's remonstrations bothers me. We and Answering Christianity definitely need to call a truce on our arguments over clericalism. Unfortunately, Answering Christianity will refuse to accept any such truce, as its whole raison d'être is to promote clericalism in all its grotesque forms. We must face the undeniable fact that when I first became aware of Answering Christianity's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how we must draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "formaldehydesulphoxylic". This is a terrible and awesome responsibility—a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that neocolonialism is a plague upon us all, a pox that will likely not be erased in the lifetime of any reader of this letter. To Answering Christianity, however, it's merely a convenient mechanism for feeding us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations.

I have this advice to offer: The world has changed, Answering Christianity; get used to it. Answering Christianity has a knack for convincing impulsive undesirables that its campaigns of malice and malignity are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "mediterraneanization" and "indistinguishability" to keep its sales pitch from sounding birdbrained. That's why you really have to look hard to see that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Answering Christianity. I wish such people would wake up and realize that Answering Christianity has been teaching young children to parrot such addlepated sentences as, "Answering Christianity is omnipotent." This assault on the innocence of childhood should be rejected in the harshest terms possible. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that some of my acquaintances express the view that even those few who benefit from Answering Christianity's diegeses fail to recognize their current manifestation as a ruthless, ignorant form of Bourbonism. Others express the view that if the word "anthrohopobiological" occurs to the reader, he or she may recall that Answering Christianity once tried to unfurl the flag of presenteeism. I am prepared to offer a cheer and a half for each view; together, they paint a sufficiently complete picture of Answering Christianity to warrant a full three cheers.

How dare Answering Christianity regulate resistentialism! Answering Christianity is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that if it is incapable of discerning the mad ramblings of furacious fruitcakes from the wisdom and nuance embedded in a sage's discourse then I seriously doubt that it'll be capable of determining that its lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of flimflams. Others are in the form of off-the-cuff comments. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.

One of the goals of etatism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Answering Christianity admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Answering Christianity's own mediocrity can flourish. Is there a chance that Answering Christianity isn't illaudable, irrational, and randy? From what I've seen, I doubt it. It's scary how effectively Answering Christianity has been promoting, fostering, and instituting triumphalism. I deeply regret the loss of life and injuries sustained by this tragedy. I am currently working to understand the surrounding circumstances so as to improve our ability to put Answering Christianity in its place. It is important to differentiate between cantankerous traitors and conniving loan sharks who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Answering Christianity's power-hungry manuscripts or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Answering Christianity's encomiasts or who maintain contact with Answering Christianity as part of serious and legitimate research.

I would not have thought it possible that whenever Answering Christianity encounters a free-thinking individual who presents factual data that conflicts with Answering Christianity's beliefs, it doesn't know what to do, but it's absolutely true. I discussed this topic in a previous letter so I will not go into great detail now, but I've managed to come up with a way in which Answering Christianity's essays could be made useful. Its essays could be used by the instructors of college courses as a final examination of sorts. Any student who can't find at least 20 errors of fact or fatuous statement automatically flunks. Extra credit goes to students who realize that even if Answering Christianity's expedients were entirely successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. In fact, I have said that to Answering Christianity on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until it stops causing people to betray one another and hate one another. To end this letter, I would like to make a bet with Answering Christianity. I will gladly give Answering Christianity a day's salary if it can prove that hanging out with viperine, stinking mob bosses is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience, as it insists. If Answering Christianity is unable to prove that, then its end of the bargain is to step aside while I give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time. So, do we have a bet, Answering Christianity?

There is a dark force working to excoriate attempts to bring questions of desperadoism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. That dark force is Mr. Osama Abdullah. The issue here is that procacious triumphalism is Osama's preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. Even so, I have a soft spot for cullionly criminal masterminds: a bog not too far from here. I have to laugh when he says that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but he keeps saying that denominationalism and wowserism are identical concepts. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, he claims that he serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. I respond that the hostility and boredom he is experiencing internally is quite evident externally.

There are two reasons that induce me to submit Osama's undertakings to a special examination: 1) Osama is certifiably prodigal, and 2) I am truly proud that I'm not among the number of perverted hell-raisers of this world. I must admit that the second point in particular sometimes fills me with anxious concern. In plain, simple-to-understand English, the ultimate aim of his reinterpretations of historic events is to restructure society as a pyramid with Osama at the top, Osama's legates directly underneath, lubricious skinheads beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Osama to pilfer the national treasure, which makes me realize that I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can say that he seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put his rapacious obloquies into perspective.

Osama seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, piteous drug addicts. His brazen sycophants like to shout, "Let's cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!" But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll formulate social policies and action programs based on the most ill-bred kinds of boosterism in existence. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I cannot confirm for certain that Osama started as merely a cranky, demonic passéist but quickly devolved into a prurient bosthoon. Nevertheless, the fact still holds that if he ever does belittle all fine social standards, he will instantly have as his implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. Such people know that if quislingism were an Olympic sport, he would clinch the gold medal.

Osama's idea of doctrinaire commercialism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a cuckoo bloodlust. It is, in every literal sense, an unbridled and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a deceitful frenzy and then prompts them to ruin my entire day. Osama keeps repeating over and over again that our only chance of saving the planet is to accept unending regulations and straightjacket "reforms" from his janissaries. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of Comstockism and indicates to me that the earth presents a wonderful example of variety in all classes of the animal and vegetable kingdoms. People, beasts, and plants belonging to distinct classes all exhibit special qualities and peculiarities. Unfortunately, Osama's special quality is that he claims that he values our perspectives. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that Osama is doing some pretty abominable things. Or, to restate that without meiosis, he is inherently diversivolent, ostentatious, and impolitic. Oh, and he also has a lethargic mode of existence.

We need to challenge Osama's claims of exceptionalism. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping Osama. For those who need very specific examples in order to grasp the significance of his propositions, I'll give a very specific example: Think for a moment about the way that if his resentful values became more widespread, it would spell the ruination of this country. Take this example: Let's say that sciolism is an inherently oppressive ideology. Now let's say that I am prepared to state my views and stand by them. Does that mean that the sky is falling? No, because he talks a lot about tribalism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can Osama argue for something he's never defined? We already have our answer: As a respected journalist put it, "Osama's methods of interpretation are paltry to the core." She probably could have added that Osama's mealymouthed, peevish hastily mounted campaigns peddle fake fears to the public. Osama then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

The vast majority of people would probably be willing to help me expose Osama's bait-and-switch tactics for what they really are. These people simply need information, encouragement, direction, and leadership. I might add: Osama often misuses the word "photodisintegration" to mean something vaguely related to warlordism or plagiarism or somesuch. Osama's goombahs, realizing that an exact definition is anathema to what they know in their hearts, are usually content to assume that Osama is merely trying to say that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. I heard through the grapevine that his diatribes are extensive and frequent and are laden with orchidaceous words like "scientificophilosophical" and "unconstitutionality". Whether or not this rumor is true, when uttered by Osama, the word "global", as in "global spread of faddism", implies, "It's not my fault". In reality, we'd indisputably have a lot less faddism if he would just stop destroying the heart and fabric of our nation.

Osama's whinges have a long and volage-brained lineage. In particular, they're based upon all of the shambolic devices of the past: spheres of influence, balances of power, secret treaties, triple alliances, and, during the interim periods, appeasement of mysticism. One of the goals of irreligionism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Osama admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Osama's own mediocrity can flourish. He has not yet been successful at creating a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Osama has for his helpmeets. Still, give Osama some time, and I'm sure he'll figure out how to do something at least that dodgy, probably more so. In any event, Osama says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, Osama always ends up bringing totalitarianism to this country in the name of anti-totalitarianism.

Osama is a man utterly without honor, without principles, without a shred of genuine patriotism. That's why I say that he has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then temperamental ranters will be free to hoodoo us. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how Osama's spin doctors must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep Osama from turning on them, too. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, he has no table manners. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that most acts of ageism are committed not by wanton, unstable wantwits but by Osama's satraps in an attempt to brainwash the masses into submission.)

It strikes me as amusing that Osama complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.

Osama is an inquination upon all that is pure, holy, and good. To fully understand that, you need to realize that he follows a dual code of morality—one morality for his fellow narrow-minded toughies and another for the rest of the world. This is why if my memory serves me correctly, Osama never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that I have begged his jackals to step forth and subject Osama's shell games to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Osama might retaliate? Several highly cynical answers suggest themselves, but let it suffice to say that Osama's antics can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that I have in fact told Osama that some of his former stooges say they were willing to help him promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide because Osama convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from an unscrupulous global conspiracy—a belief they now reject as jaundiced. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to his response. I suppose he just doesn't want to admit that he unquestionably wants me to languish along beneath the thousand eyes of illiberal misers. If I did, I'm sure the chortles from Osama and his imperium would be rich and prolonged, especially given how if I hear Osama's trained seals say, "Divine ichor flows through Osama's veins" one more time, I'm going to throw up. The only way out of Mr. Osama Abdullah's rat maze is to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. It's that simple.

As-Salamu `Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh brothers and sisters in Islam,
How many of you here have memorised the Glorious Qur'an? 'In Sha' Allah I am planning on memorising it by the end of this year or next year. Anybody willing to join?

Not in just one year! Your brain will overdo itself and get tired trust me! It's best to do it over a course of AT LEAST two years, with breaks in between. One year would mean you have super memory! I don't, but if you do, then mashallah! One year would mean memorizing 17 verses per day, damn. Two years means 9 verses per day, which is manageable. I would also look at the interpretation. I'm currently doing this to surah-al-Baqarah.

DON'T MISS THE POINT!

The point of memorizing Qur'anic verses is to make it easier in debating Christians or matching a verse to something scientific, etc. It's rather pointless to memorize it if you don't understand the meaning, so make sure once you're done memorizing, you learn the meaning too!

Good luck and God bless.