Further Topic Research:
Syntax help

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube

My rebuttal to Jochen Katz on "A rude email sent to me by the Answering Islam team" (I proved him to be a double-faced hypocrite with my captured image against him and his team members):

This article is a rebuttal to http://www../Responses/Osama/emailfraud2.htm

 

He wrote:

Responses to Osama Abdallah's site

Yet Another Email Fraud


It seems to become fashionable these days to send forged emails in the name of Answering Islam. Another recent incident is exposed in the article Muslim Desparation Leads to E-Mail Fraud. Most of the comments and observations made in that article hold for this new fraud as well, so that there is no need to repeat them here.

 

My response:

You like to magnify yourself and make such a big deal out of yourself when you are in reality nothing but a double-faced hypocrite as I will clearly and irrefutably prove below with a captured picture!

 

He wrote:

The motivation and approach is obvious: "If we cannot prove Answering Islam wrong in what they publish, i.e. if what they write is not bad enough, then we have to publish something in their name that will make them look bad." Since Muslims do not have access to our site, i.e. they can't smuggle anything into our website, the only other way is to create forged emails in our name, and publish those on their site claiming that they received them from us.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, there is no need to hack your site.  It's easy enough to refute it and surround it geographically as I did with my www.answering-islam.com and www.answering-christianity.org.   Any reader who finds your site will eventually (sooner or later) run into mine, and this is where they will see the Truth of Islam and realize that your site is full of deceptions.

 

He wrote:

This time, after the first attempt didn't work out all that well, the Muslim forgers decided they have to think one step ahead: "What if they just deny they sent it? We need to make that difficult, or sounding not credible." Well, let's see what they came up with.

On 07/04/2003 Osama Abdallah published the following accusation on his site (at the bottom of this page):

 

A rude email from the "Answering Islam" arrogant Christians sent to me:

The following is an email I received. I have bolded, colored and underlined in dark green the ridiculous remarks they made in the "PS" section. Please be advised that I have left the contents of the email as is. I did not alter it or modify the words in the email in anyway!

Also, please be advised that I don't have a definite proof that this email was indeed from them. Some people can send emails covered with different aliases. So in other words, a person can send a bad email under the sender "Osama Abdallah". ...

[... various irrelevant polemics deleted ...]

Subj:    Request from Answering-Islam.
Date:    6/30/03 5:34:45 PM Central Daylight Time
From:    [forged Answering-Islam feedback email address was placed here]
To:    ISLM4EVR1@aol.com (ISLM4EVR1@aol.com)

Dear Osama Abdallah,

The Answering-Islam Team would like to ask you to remove the following false-informative articles from your web site;

https://www.answering-christianity.com/death.htm
https://www.answering-christianity.com/by_the_sword.htm
https://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

It offends many Christians as it provides lies and false information. Thank you for your understanding.

Politely and respectfully yours,
The Answering-Islam Team

PS: Please do not decide to ignore our request and/or post this e-mail on your idiotic website. You will only make yourself look very stupid as we deny the whole incident.. especially if you post the PS along with it.


My response:

Mr. Katz, here is where I will prove you to be a double-faced hypocrite!  First of all, I don't care whether this email is forged or not. 

This is where Mr. Katz cut his answer short and said the following:

The following inside this table/frame was taken from: http://www../Responses/Osama/emailfraud2.htm

 

He wrote:

Though Osama Abdallah had ignored my emails, he decided to react to my public answer to his false charges.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, you posted emails that you sent to others before to prove your point.   How come you never posted the emails you sent to me?  Ihonest to Allah Almighty have not seen any of the emails you claimed to have sent.  They either have slipped under my eyes, or you are a complete liar (since we did not see the contents of these emails posted on your site as further proof and elaboration to your claim).

 

He wrote:

Most of his reaction was absolutely irrelevant. The only important statement in his lengthy diatribe of insults and incoherent arguments was this:

Mr. Katz, here is where I will prove you to be a double-faced hypocrite! First of all, I don't care whether this email is forged or not. ...

Looking at the second of the quoted sentences, one does not need to wonder for long who really is the hypocrite! Since Mr. Abdallah does not care about the very topic of discussion, there is really nothing I or anyone else could say that would make any difference. He will just use it as a further occasion for more insults. I am a man of my words. Everthing I have stated about the procedures at Answering Islam is true.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, what I meant to say here is that I since we both are claiming two conflicting claims, I don't care about further proving that this email was from you or not, because IT SOUNDED IT WAS FROM YOUR TEAM AS I EXPERIENCED THIS TYPE OF ARROGANCE FROM YOUR TEAM MATES BEFORE!

This still does not give you the right to chicken your way out of the article and refuse to answer it!

 

He wrote:

It is is my personal policy to discuss matters only with those who actually care about determining the truth of an issue. Since he does not care about the truth, there is no basis for discussion and I will not waste my time on him. Abdallah introduces theological controversies like the Trinity, his claims of pornography in the Bible, the behavior of other people, and many more issues into his response which have NOTHING at all to do with this issue (he even challenges me to debate his paper about polygamy). The topic was ONLY the question whether this email was genuine or a fraud. I have answered that question. Period.

 

My response:

Your failure to remain consistent and taking sides is what made your answer and points be doubtful and refutable.  The remaining of this article outside this frame/table has many points that you have YET TO ANSWER Mr. Katz.

 

He wrote:

Had there been any genuine interest on his side to rectify the current issue, there may have been a basis to talk about whatever other grievances he has. But he has now made it unmistably clear, that he is not interested in truth.

 

My response:

Nonsense and you know it.

 

He wrote:

I had no intention to make this thing a big issue. I emailed him privately for the very reason that we may resolve the issue amiably and don't have to start a public debate about it. Abdallah's appeal to pity regarding how many and what kind of spam emails he receives is irrelevant.

 

My response:

You are so good in posting your email contents to prove your point in your articles.   You are also good in posting other's emails and respond to them.  You claimed that you sent me two emails.  You never mentioned their contents.  I honestly never received them!  Why are you being inconsistent now Mr. Katz?

Care to respond to this one?

 

He wrote:

His excuse that he may have accidentally deleted my two personal emails sent to him is silly. None of mine looked like spam. They came under my name, from my personal email account, and they both had the subject line: "Forged email", certainly not a line I have ever seen spammers using. They did not bounce, so they were delivered. Should I have sent him five more, one every other week, so that he can delete those as well and still claim I sent him none? Or should I have sent him a 100 of them at once so that he can attack me for flooding his mail box?

 

My response:

Again, what is the content of those emails?  And why are you failing now to provide the contents of your emails?  You've been doing it up until this point.   That's odd!

 

He wrote:

Nor was the question whether Abdallah has the ability to block email accounts from sending mail. Our system is set up that way. Maybe there are actually people who know more about operating systems and programming than he does. There will never be emails originating from any of the various feedback addresses on our server. This decision was made years ago, and the system was designed that way. Obviously, the system admin with root access to this machine (not me) could change the installed system, and then emails could be sent, but that was not the point.

 

My response:

It is very easy for a team member of yours, or even yourself, to set up an account with the server that generated the spam email and send a forged email and later claim that it wasn't yours.  You yourself had generated a forged email on your very own server that you talked about at http://www../Responses/Osama/exposed_lies.htm:

exposed_lies-spam.jpg (141170 bytes)

You said yourself in that link under this picture: "Well, ... I forged the above displayed messages. Mr. Abdallah didn't actually send me any of the above displayed emails, or even any message at all. I sent all of these from his address (more correctly, I was faking his address) to my Answering Islam feedback address, and then I downloaded them again into my computer."

Yet, Mr. Katz was able to alter the system and send a forged email under my email account: truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com as his picture above shows.

Mr. Katz, you have refuted yourself!

And since Mr. Katz can change his server, I have one question for him:

Did you also forge the original email that was sent to both of us?

 

He wrote:

The particular email under discussion was proven to be forged since the lines "Return-Path:" and "Message-ID:" show that it originated on a domain by the name of "hyperion.thechain.com" and that therefore the "From:" line was forged. I have no time to write a detailed response to every such email fraud. My comment about the set up of the system was intended mainly to counter possible future attempts of such forgeries, in order to make it clear once and for all that there will never be a genuine email from the domain "." because no emails are sent out from there.

 

My response:

You have proven to us that you are a master in creating forged emails, and you can most certainly send one as you did already to yourself under my truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com email address.

Why should it be impossible for you to forge an email using another server Mr. Katz?

If Quennel Gale was able to send me email bombs from his Yahoo acount (using Yahoo's server), then you most certainly can send forged emails.

 

He wrote:

Abdallah may not care whether the email was forged or not, and whether he promotes lies or not. I have done my part and clarified the issue. If he will continue to claim what he knows is wrong, then this is his problem alone. I will leave the judgment to God who will surely take care of those who are willful liars.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, I never meant to say that I don't care for the Truth.  You obviously misunderstood my slang.  You see Mr. Katz, I like to write in a language that everyone can understand, especially when many of my Muslim readers can hardly speak English.  I am sorry that you misunderstood my slang.


Continuing with my response:

To me, it sounded like your type of language (which made it sound authentic to me), because I've experienced it from your clowns before.  Second, you are a double-faced hypocrite for never commenting on your clowns bombarding my email box with their email bombs.  I have captured images of that and displayed it on my site at: www.answering-christianity.com/expose_lies.htm.   We never saw any comment from you on this!  Not even once!

Here is a sample image from one of your clowns:

queball23.jpg
This is a small sample of Quennel Gale's (one of their members) emails that he keeps sending
to me.  The above image contains only 10 emails from the 143 emails that he sent to my AOL
Account that I have listed on my main page.
I captured this "JPG" file after deleting most of his
junk emails.

So now Mr. Katz, aren't you being a double-faced hypocrite for never condemning the childish acts of your team members?

 

He wrote:

I have to admit, that announcement of denial in the postscript (PS:) was a clever move. However, after the fog clears, and the emotional impact of it vanishes, one thing is clear: Whatever is written, it is still only a claim, even if the claim was constructed in a tricky way.

 

My response:

Only a deceiver like you can pull a tick like this Mr. Katz.  How do we know that it wasn't you or one of your clowns who sent this email that you later claimed to be forged?

 

He wrote:

I do not usually read Osama's site, but after being made aware of his posting and looking at it carefully, I immediately informed Osama Abdallah that this was a forged email (using the above address "ISLM4EVR1@aol.com" that was in the forged email). This was early on Friday, July 11, 2003. No response. On July 22, 2003, I sent the same message to his official feedback address, "truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com". Again, no response.

 

My response:

I very carefully read the subject headings of my emails.  I normally received at least 50+ emails every single day!  Most of them are junk and porn emails (similar to the porn in your Bible where brothers claiming that their sisters' vaginas tasted like "wine" in the Gospel of Song of Songs.   Read www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm).   I honest to Allah Almighty have not seen any of the emails you claimed to have sent.  They either have slipped under my eyes, or you are a complete liar (since we did not see the contents of these emails posted on your site as further proof and elaboration to your claim).

 

He wrote:

Even though Osama admitted in his posting that emails can be forged, he is obviously not interested in knowing the truth and acting according to it. Therefore, now my public response to his accusation.

 

My response:

Osama Abdallah does not need a ridiculous email like this to promote his agenda.   What Osama Abdallah did was post what he thought was Truthful.  We'll let time prove the Truth and falsity of this.

 

He wrote:

First, the feedback email address for Answering Islam is technically set up only for receiving emails. The system has been this way for at least two years now. It is impossible to send emails from that account (even for me). Every email appearing to originate from this address is without doubt forged.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, from my Chat room, Search Engines and Free Islamic Marriage System, I think one can easily tell that I am a professional internet programmer.  Your claim is absolutely false!  No email address in this world can be set to not be able to send emails.  This is either a clear lie from you, or a misunderstanding.  I know this, because this is my field.

 

He wrote:

In addition, the header of this message (as provided by Osama) has the common features of forged emails:

 

Return-Path: <root@hyperion.thechain.com>
Date: 30 Jun 2003 22:34:17 -0000
Message-ID: <20030630223417.17263.qmail@hyperion.thechain.com>
From: "dialog..@." <dialog..@.>

Even though the "From:" line was forged (and that is very easy to do), the lines "Return-Path:" and "Message-ID:" betray that it came the domain "hyperion.thechain.com". Until I came across this forged email on Osama's site, I had never before seen this domain name. None of our team members of Answering Islam has an account on this domain.

 

My response:

You said: "None of our team members of Answering Islam has an account on this domain."  So I guess Mr. Katz that we have no choice but to trust your words.  You seem to be a man with high credibility and honesty, but please don't speak on behalf of all of your team members, because you live far away from them.   They live in different States in the US and outside the US.  So, you speaking on their behalf and assuring us that non of them has an account with "thechain.com" is based on no proofs.

 

He wrote:

"thechain.com" is an Internet Service Provider where anyone can rent their own servers (physical or virtual) with full root access (see www.thechain.com). The "Return-Path:" shows that a person with root access on one of the servers of "thechain.com" sent this message. I tried to send a message to the address "root@hyperion.thechain.com", but it cannot be delivered, which is yet another sign that the email is a forgery.

 

My response:

Ok.

 

He wrote:

Second, nobody of our team would send out emails in the name of the team, certainly not without consulting with me. And there is no chance at all, that I would ever approve an email as nonsensical and incoherent as the above.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, again, please don't assure us of things that you have no assurance of!   You certainly could not stop your clown Quennel Gale from bombarding my email address as I clearly showed in the image above, could you Mr. Katz?  You are an intelligent man.  Therefore, please don't make unintelligent comments and assurances like this.

Also Mr. Katz, are you the personal guardian of all of your team members?  How in the world would you be able to stop any of them from sending any inappropriate email?   They're not perfect Mr. Katz, are they?  They do make mistakes, right?   So, there is no way you can actually prevent any of them from taking any action on the net or sending an email that you would not approve of.

 

He wrote:

Outgoing emails from Answering Islam members always come from a personal account, whether it is my account when I answer myself, or the private account of the person to whom I delegated answering a particular question or inquiry, but never directly from the general feedback address or any other address ending in @. (again: It is not even possible).

 

My response:

Yes it is possible to send emails ending with @..  Also, why can't it be a Christian who forged this email?  Why do you have to assume that it was a Muslim?  Frankly, if this was a forged email, then I don't really care whether the person was a Muslim or Christian.  To me it's not a big deal.  I just posted it because it sounded very similar to the childish comments that some of your team members have said to me before.

 

He wrote:

Third, I am the only person who has access to the Answering Islam feedback email account.

 

My response:

Again, another ridiculous lie from you.  Anyone who has the general login and password to your site can access any email account he/she wishes!  Your "feedback email account" can be easily accessed once the person logs into the main site.

 

He wrote:

Fourth, I nearly always sign with my full name, Jochen Katz, sometimes with only my first name, but never in my life have I signed an email with "The Answering-Islam Team".

 

My response:

Since anyone who has your main site's login and password can access any email address on your site, then anyone can send an email from your account.

 

He wrote:

So far the technical side of it.

 

My response:

You talk like you know everything, when in reality you're full of it.

 

He wrote:

Let's have a look at the content of the message. The expression "false-informative" betrays a non-native speaker, not yet very proficient in English. If something is false, then it is not informative. No native speaker of English would write that way.

 

My response:

May be this is something one of your team members purposely wrote.

 

He wrote:

Many Muslim websites are full of misinformation and often enough even outright lies. However, we have never asked a site to remove false claims about matters of religious discussion. Instead, we expose these false claims by discussing them in a public rebuttal if they are worth bothering about at all. We do not shy away or hide from hard questions. See our Rebuttal section.

 

My response:

I've been asked by Sam Shamoun and Quennel Gale to remove what they called "false information" on my site before.  These two are from your team members.

 

He wrote:

Even though much of the anti-Christian polemic produced by Muslims is indeed offensive, whining about offensive articles is not and never was our approach (though we may call Muslim writers to account for being deliberately insulting). The issue is whether something is true or false, not whether somebody is offended by it. We prefer the hard truth over the politically correct distortion. In fact, we desire that more Christians begin to realize how offensive Islam really is. We want the Christians to be shaken up from their complacency by recognizing this, so that they will no longer ignore Islam, but begin to educate themselves and become equipped to defend their Christian faith, to speak for truth and stand against what is false. Far be it from us to beg that any Muslim site would remove anything. These issues need to be public and to be addressed publically. We fully support the freedom of speech, including the freedom to propagate wrong convictions. It is the Muslims that seek to forbid what they don't like, and in nearly all Muslim countries there is an oppressive censoring of the press. Anything that is critical of Islam is in danger to be confiscated, and those who dared publish it have to fear hefty penalties.

 

My response:

Those so-called "Muslim countries" are not run by Islamic governments.   Also, Allah Almighty clearly said: "Let there be no compulsion (forcing others) in religion:  Truth stands out clear from error...(The Noble Quran, 2:256)"  I think this Noble Verse clearly speaks for itself.  No oppression is allowed in Islam.

For more proofs, please visit Human equality and freedom in Islam Vs Christianity. You'll be shocked to learn that it is your Bible that promotes oppression.

 

He wrote:

Muslims constantly protest that people offend them if they do not speak with the utmost respect about Islam. To ask for removal / withdrawal of arguments because they are offensive betrays a Muslim writer of the message. The fundamentalist Muslim pressure group CAIR focuses much of its efforts on forcing people (journalists, politicians, ...) to apologize for their offensive remarks about Islam. This approach of threatening those who speak what they do not like to hear again betrays a Muslim hand in the design of this message as this is the common way of dealing with religious critique in Islam. (Although, sadly, some immature Christians may act similarly at times.) The Muslims who wrote this message just projected their thinking on us because they have not understood how fundamentally different our world view is from theirs.

 

My response:

You said: "The Muslims who wrote this message..."  What makes you be so sure that it was a Muslim who sent this email?  What kind of an unethical and uneducated conclusion is that?  It reminds me of your trinity conclusion.  It too is nothing but a lousy conclusion.  See my detailed refutation to Sam Shamoun; one of your team members.

 

He wrote:

Much more could be said regarding the text of this forged email, but the above should suffice.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, you've been soundly refuted on the technical side, and proven to be unethical with your quick conclusions on the personal side.

 

He wrote:

As a child, I loved reading detective stories. Every crime needs a suspect and a motive. So far I have explained that it is a forgery for various external and internal reasons, and I have supplied a possible general motivation for Muslims to forge emails from Answering Islam. However, there is one particularly interesting observation.

Osama Abdallah is an outsider in Islam. Not many Muslims support his heretical ideas. Why then would both of these forged emails be addressed to Osama, and directly or indirectly promote his website answering-christianity.com?

Whatever the identity of the person who technically performed the mass mailing scam in May 2003, the person who "profited" from this spam scam using the Answering Islam feedback address was Osama, since it promoted his website.

 

My response:

Thank GOD that I don't own a server, nor do I have one.  It is you and your team who own a server.  So, why can't it be you?  It's easy for you to make me look bad.  I don't need these kinds of childish techniques to promote my web site.   They serve no purpose and they refute nothing.  All of my site is about refuting your pornful bible (the book of brothers and sisters making love to each others according to the book of Song of Songs) and promoting the Truth of Islam.  If someone loves my site so much that he/she wishes to promote it, then may Allah Almighty bless them, and forgive them for the mistake they made in forging emails.

Also Mr. Katz, let me remind you that it was your team that started the email forging and bombing.  Look at the above image again in case your forgot.

 

He wrote:

Here again, the only one benefitting from scam is Osama, as this forged email gives more promotion to three of his articles: Anything that is supposedly so bad that ‘the most infamous Christian site on Islam’ requests it to be taken off must therefore be SO GOOD that people just have to read it.... What is forbidden becomes attractive. Whatever people are warned about and are asked to avoid, that they want to know, etc. That is Psychology 101. Osama would have a motive to be the forger, and his motive is stronger than that of any other Muslim. His ‘outrage’ about this rude email would just be part of the plan.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, now that you mentioned it, I really would like to openly challenge you to refute my "Polygamy in the Bible's New and Old Testaments", where I showed that Jesus allowed for one man to marry 10 virgins in his parable.  Not only that, but it seems also that Jesus did not put any limitations on one man sleeping with multiple wives in the same room.  This is prohibited in Islam, but I have not found any verse in your pornful bible that prohibits it.  I on the contrary found verses that promote it right from the New Testament.

 

He wrote:

I can't prove that he did it. Probably he did not do it all by himself, but he may have asked some friends to do it for him.

 

My response:

Again, you are full of it.  Why can't it be you since you and your team own a server?  You have the capability to do far more than me, since I own no servers.

 

He wrote:

Another possible scenario is that a more clever Muslim did not care who got promoted, as long as the credibility of Answering Islam received some damage. Because he was clever, he knew that such a scam would not work with highly intelligent Muslims like Shibli Zaman or Dr. MSM Saifullah and their sites seeking to rebut ours. As opposed as they are to Answering Islam they would never be fooled by such an obvious forgery. Osama Abdallah, on the other hand, would swallow it and play the role that was intended for him. However, he was informed two weeks ago that this email is a forgery. By continuing to display the above message despite knowing this, he becomes guilty of slander and promoting forgeries, even if it did not originate with him.

Whatever the real motivation and identity of the forger, these are my thoughts on the matter, and it is now up to the reader what he will make of it.

 

My response:

Mr. Katz, you really crack me up from laughing.  So now you're suggesting that I am very dumb.  No Mr. Katz, I am not dumb.  I did however take the challenge to expose you if you were the culprit.  And like I said, it was your team who started the email forging and bombing, not me.  In fact, I never even once email bombed anybody, nor forged any email.  Allah Almighty is a Witness on my words in this one.  But your clowns on the other hand do have tools to generate email bombs.  So it would not surprise me if they managed to create forged emails. 

After all, they can always blame it on the dummy (me).  Right?  Wrong Mr. Katz.  The only dummy here is you and your clowns.  My site with the Mercy and Will of Allah Almighty had successfully helped 100s of non-Muslims embrace Islam.   This is a record breaker if I were to document every single email I received.  

With this alone, my site had soundly defeated your site if we were to compare numbers against numbers. 

I did for a while document the positive emails I received, because they were overwhelming and so encouraging.   But I stopped doing it due to lack of time.  So, the only clown and dummy here is you and your team Mr. Katz and your polytheist trinity conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

How can Jesus be GOD Almighty when he asked for GOD's Forgiveness?

Answering Trinity.

Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.

Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.

What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?

"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.

Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.

Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!

Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.

Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross.  I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken.  My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion.  I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.


Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.

 

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube