O. Abdallah objected to the above explanation in this reaction. In this part and in those following below, my answers to his objections will be put into such a narrower box to distinguish them from the original article. Abdallah complains:

Actually, I do have full confidence that my resource is truthful. There was no dubious lengthy isnad (chain of transmitters) before the news reached me. Since O. Abdallah identified Silas as one of the relevant witnesses, let me present the testimony of Silas, who was also the person who informed me in the early months of the year 2000 that Qais Ali had left Islam. As an active participant in those forums Abdallah, without doubt, also knows of the Arab (Lebanese) Christian with the AOL screen name "Jesseb1" who was regularly debating in the Muslim chatrooms.

My response:

Silas, Jesseb1 and JesusIslam and other Christians used to be very active, almost on daily basis, in the "Islamic Resources", and "Life - Islam" chat rooms.  Me (used to be "Plstine1" but not any more), Rami Abdallah (Palestine5) and Qais Ali (MartyrforGod) and other Muslim brothers and sisters used to be their main debaters.

He wrote:

Silas (AOL screen name "Silas778") and Jesseb1 often worked together as a team in these debates.

Silas Wrote: I have said that Qais left Islam. For several years around the year 2000, I participated actively in Muslim and Christian chatrooms. I believe there were two different Muslim oriented chat rooms, "Muslim Chat", and "Islamic Chat", on AOL.   My response: This sounds very suspicious to me!  Silas used to literally be on "Islamic Resources" and "Life -Islam" almost 24 hours a day on daily basis!  He used to come every single night to these chat rooms, and he even used to come during the day even during business hours!  I every once in a while used to log in during my lunch hours on my lap top when I used to travel and check these chat room, and guess what, this lifeless loser used to be there! And now Silas is saying "I believe there were two different Muslim oriented chat rooms, "Muslim Chat", and "Islamic Chat", on AOL."??!! He not only got the name of the chat rooms wrong, but he also is not sure if they were two or more! This sounds very suspicious to me!   Silas wrote: Qais used several screenames. The two I remember are Ahmaddeedat2, and MartyrforGod. I was there as Silas778. At times Qais and I debated topics in Christianity and Islam vigorously.   My response: You had many people debating you.  This does not surprise anybody.   Silas wrote: In 1999 Qais and I had been in an email debate and I began to quote from Tabari's History and Ibn Ishaq's biography, to prove the evil actions of Muhammad. Then abruptly he stopped. He did not send any more emails and he did not show up in the chat rooms.   My response: This is something normal for a very busy person who is in the leader position on the internet.  You're making sound like that it is unusual for brother Qais to stop responding to you.    He wrote: About 8 months later or so, he showed up in the chat rooms. I was told by Jesseb1 that now he was not a committed Muslim and he voiced some criticisms about Islam. Many Muslims were shocked to see a former Muslim criticizing Islam!   My response: You said 8 months later!  This means that it is highly possible that he had canceled his AOL account like I did with Plstine1.  Tell me Silas, if a clown under "Plstine1" from AOL today sends you an email denouncing Islam, will you then go and advertise that Osama Abdallah had left Islam too? Could it be that Silas himself was under Qais's old screen name? 8 months is a very long time for an AOL screen name.  Many people lose their accounts long before that.  I did before.   Silas wrote: Then I heard the same comment from other people. A few days later we encountered each other. I was apprehensive. He greeted me with, "hello old friend". He told me he left Islam, and we talked cordially. I encouraged him to become Christian. He said if he were going to believe in god he would become a Muslim again (because he couldn't believe in our Jesus). He seemed to come and go for a month or two, but after that I don't remember running into him again.   My response: Silas, since you have 8 months gap, couldn't the person of that screen name be another Christian who was trying to give you encouragement by making you feel that you won something?  Or couldn't it be you who did it? You might say "well if this is a lie, then the person could've easily declared to have become a Christian".  My response to this would be that this is impossible or hard to do because now the false Qais Ali would have to commit himself to Christianity and help you in your 24/7 online activities.  This lie would also be much harder to cover than to simply claim that Qais became an atheist and left Islam and disappeared all of the sudden.   Silas wrote: I believe his action of criticizing Islam was natural for somebody who was fully convinced of the truth of Islam (or of any world view) and invested much time and effort to defend and propagate it, but then comes to realize he was terribly wrong.   My response: Another statement that sounds very suspicious from you.  Silas, most of the answering-islam.org site is about rebuttals to Muslim sites.  Jochen Katz claims that there are more than 12,000 objects (from articles and images) on the site.  So it is a very huge site.  Are you suggesting that these Muslims don't know Islam? Your foolish statement makes me incline more and more toward believing that it was you or someone you knew well who created the false Qais Ali.   Silas wrote: There is a feeling of having been betrayed and having wasted much of his life for something that is so bad. It was very natural for him to criticize Islam as vigorously as he originally defended it.   My response: At least Islam has miracles in it that live until today and will continue to live until the Day of Judgement.  The "scientific" statements that exist in the Noble Quran such as the earth is "egg-shaped", and everything originated from water, and mountains and hills were created to keep the earth's rotation around itself balanced lest it doesn't shake all prove that Islam is Truthful and the Divine Noble Quran was not revealed by a liar.  Visit www.answering-christianity.com/sci_quran.htm for more details and proofs. Now let us look at your pornful bible, the book of vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and she wished if her lover was her "biological brother" so she wouldn't have to take him to her mother's home in secret to make love with him.   Visit www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm for more details and proofs. Also, your bible claims that the earth is a round disc, and it is standing on pillars so that it "wouldn't move".  We all know that your dumb bible contains many erroneous statements in it that were scientifically refuted.  Visit www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm for more details and proofs. If any natural feeling of betrayal should occur, it would most likely occur to a sincere and Truth-seeking Christian, because once they discover Islam, they won't leave it. So much for your nonsensical remarks and self-refuting attitude.   He wrote: I wish him the best in life and I do hope that he finds comfort, peace, and truth, in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. silas   My response: No kidding.

He (Jochen Katz) wrote:

Since we are apparently now discussing credibility of witness and testimony ... it seems to come down to the issue whether people want to believe Abdallah or Silas.

My response:

Silas used to live in AOL chat rooms.  Him failing to get the chat rooms right and not being sure of the number of chat rooms he used to go to raises some serious doubts and suspicions about his credibility and truthfulness.

He wrote:

In his original accusation, Abdallah claimed Qais Ali IS his FRIEND, but now he does not know how to contact him. In fact, how much of a friend is he if their friendship reaches only as far as having once talked on the phone?

My response:

Qais Ali was our leader online.  He used to call the shots as to who debates who, and who gets to do to talking (depending on the topic since our strengths and knowledge varied), and who gets to send/solicit emails to the attendants of the chat rooms.   He commanded and we followed.

He wrote:

More importantly, when did they talk on the phone and what did they talk about? Obviously, if that conversation was in 1999 or earlier, while Qais Ali was still an active Muslim debater, that doesn't count. Did Abdallah speak with him after March 2000, and did he talk with him about the issue of him leaving Islam and attacking Islam in the Muslim chatrooms? Abdallah's original comments were vage and utterly insufficient and thus do not even constitute admissable testimony in this question.

My response:

I don't remember the exact date as to when we spoke, and I never mentioned any date of our conversation from the beginning because I didn't feel it was necessary.  I tend to be lazy and careless sometimes which does cost me a lot sometimes.  If I wanted to lie, I would've made up any date from the beginning.  But with all honesty me and brother Qais Ali did have that conversation and I asked him if he deserted Islam, and he said no.

Silas's claim that after 8 months brother Qais Ali came to him and told him that he deserted Islam is very suspicious, because as I mentioned above:

1-  AOL Accounts do get cancelled in far less time than 8 months.  Once the account is cancelled, then it becomes available to others to use.  It's similar to my old "Plstine1" account.  I no longer have this account and any Christian can now own it and claim through this account that Osama Abdallah have deserted Islam.

2-  Silas forgetting the names of the Islamic Chat Rooms on AOL that he used to literally live in!!, and him forgetting their quantities also raises some very serious suspicions about the truthfulness of his claim that is written in this article.

2-  Silas remarks about Islam and how he thinks it is natural for a Muslim to eventually feel betrayed from Islam also prove to be suspicious because his entire site, www.answering-islam.org is mostly about rebuttals to Muslim web sites.  This refutes Silas's silly remarks and also proves that he is irresponsible in his comments.

He wrote:

Moreover, since Abdallah demands actual quotes documenting Qais Ali's statements in the chatrooms before he would accept the word of those who were present, then obviously his word is to be believed only if he presents the audio file of his phone conversation.

My response:

Beside from what I said above regarding this point, the burden of proof of brother Qais Ali deserting Islam lies in your court and not mine.  You're the one who claimed that you had the proof.  Your presented your proof and it turned out to be a very suspicious one as I clearly showed above.

He wrote:

Even though it is possible, it is the nature of phone calls that they are usually not taped, and it is the nature of chatroom conversations that they are usually not saved. They are live, spontaneous, and "for the moment" which is different from a carefully reasoned article that is published for the purpose of being read for a long time.

My response:

Well, you said yourself Mr. self-refuting.

He wrote:

Furthermore, Abdallah seems not to be familiar with the exact meaning of the word "lying". It is a lie if I claim something to be true although knowing that it is false. Making an incorrect statement but with the full conviction that this is true, is not a lie. It is an error, delusion, mistake, or whatever other term you may want to give it, but not a lie. I do understand, however, that a webpage title "Exposed Lies of Answering Islam" has a much higher polemical value than if Abdallah had only called it an error.

My response:

I specifically posted those points that I felt were straight lies from your team mates.   I never made general statements such as "All of your articles are lies".

He wrote:

At the time of its publication I was convinced that the comment on Qais Ali was the truth, and therefore it was not a lie, whether it was objectively true or not. However, all credible testimony I currently have still says that my initial statement was and is true.

My response:

Mr. Katz, I am beginning to wonder if it was you personally who made this whole joke up.  How can Silas who used to live in AOL's "Islamic Resources" and "Life - Islam" chat rooms forget those chat room names and falsely list them as "Muslim Chat", and "Islamic Chat"?

Could it be that you made up this whole lie?  Or could it be that Silas is on drugs these days?  You know, it's very common among men to take drugs in the West.   Silas sounded very suspicious to me and you do too.

He wrote:

Lastly, there were dozens of Muslim websites that had published aggressively anti-Christian material but which have gone defunct in recent years. I have no clue what happened to these authors and webmasters.

My response:

They all embraced Christianity, right?

He wrote:

Since I do not know anything about them, I am not going to make any statement about them. I am not into speculation.

My response:

Oh ok, like this gay statement supposed to  raise your credibility.  You know, it is common that gay statements such as this generally prove that the person has something hidden in him regarding the subject. 

He wrote:

Qais Ali was good chatroom debater, but he was a minor player in terms of web publishing. For example, I would love to know what happened to Gary Miller (one of the main Muslim debaters in the 1970ies and 80ies) who has not been heard about for many years now, even though his materials are still displayed on many websites. Another person with whom I had a good bit of personal email contact and even some public debates is Misha'al Al-Kadhi. At some time, he suddenly disappeared and could not be contacted anymore.

My response:

I don't know, they probably all embraced your polytheist pagan trinity, right?

He wrote:

His book is still promoted by many Muslims, but the author has not been heard or seen in any public forum for a long time. I never got the idea to start claiming they left Islam. I do not know what happened to them, so I have no reason to write anything. Qais Ali is the only debater/webmaster about whom I ever made such a claim. Why? Because I had credible testimony about it.

My response:

Credible testimony?  The 8 months gap and lost time which would've permitted for any Qais-hating Christian to have stolen his screen name is credible to you?  Silas's utter failure to mention the correct names of the Islamic Chat rooms on AOL is credible to you?

Need I say more?

He wrote:

P.S.: That the man behind one of the most viciously anti-Christian websites at that time had left Islam was interesting news in March 2000 when I added it to our section of rebuttals to Qais Ali's site. Today this site is not only stagnant, but basically defunct (most of its content is no longer accessible). This site has no influence anymore. Thus, I would like to just delete the section altogether, including the update comment seemingly so offensive to Abdallah. The only problem is that Abdallah would then write a big and ‘noisy’ article about his victory, how he exposed this lie of Answering Islam, and they had to retreat and remove it. We will not give him this satisfaction and occasion to fabricate another accusation worse than the current one.

My response:

Brother Rami Abdallah is the actual owner of the web site and not brother Qais Ali.   I doubt if brother Qais Ali ever owned any web site.  He wrote many articles, but he never was the web master of any site.  So are you now going to suggest that brother Rami Abdallah left Islam too?

As to me making noisy articles, no I don't do that.  It was you who got all carried away with this bogus lie and advertised it on your site.  I wrote a simple refutation to it.  If you call that noisy, then this proves that you are an irresponsible person in your statements and comments.

I had posted my original answer to this alleged "Exposed Lies" on August 14, 2003. O. Abdallah posted his reaction within just one day, i.e. on August 15, 2003. He clearly didn't like any part of my article, but the part that irked him most was my dismissive response to his so-called ‘second lie’.

My response:

Who would like to read your articles Mr. Katz?  Your whole web site is boring!   It takes forever to read one article to answer one simple question.  I feel sorry for you and for your polytheist pagan trinity dogma.

He wrote:

He accuses me with these words:

Well, pictures may clarify this issue better than words. Have a careful look at this captured image of my mailbox on the day that Abdallah published his response:

[My software is German, so here the translation: Von = From; An = To; Betreff = Subject; Erhalten = Received (at date & time)]

This message clearly displays Osama Abdallah's writing style, both in the subject title as well as in the body of the message.

What is your conclusion?

Proof of Spamming by Captured Images?

No question about it, flooding anyone's mailbox is definitely bad manners.

Let it be clear and publically known to everyone: I, Jochen Katz, absolutely disagree with such methods.

However, if Abdallah spammed my address with his triumphalistic message,
then who is he to complain that ‘queball23’ spammed his mailbox?

Or, maybe, ....

... maybe something is wrong with all of this?

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.

My response:

You forging this email does not prove much.  Quennel Gale never once denied the images of his email bombs to me.  Show that quote from his site Mr. Katz if you are truthful!  The fact that you were able to forge an email proves that you and your team mates have a lot of capabilities.  You're not as innocent as you look.

Mr. Katz with this forged email had contradicted his very own statement in http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/emailfraud2.htm:

"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."

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.  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:

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. Next, I took a screen shot of my email inbox. All that was very easy. The whole excercise didn't take me more than ten minutes.

My response:

Again Mr. Katz, Quennel Gale never once denied the images of his email bombs to me.   Show that quote from his site if you are truthful!

He wrote:

Abdallah makes a big deal of it that he is supposedly a computer professional. So this should be even easier for him than for me who only uses computers in order to produce content for the website and to do correspondence with those who respond to it, but I would certainly not want to pretend that I am a computer expert.

My response:

Like I said above, you're not as innocent as you look.

He wrote:

Just as Abdallah on his site, I did not show the headers of the emails because they would have betrayed that the messages were forged. I only presented a screen shot displaying the "official" part of the header that can easily be manipulated. [But I showed at least the body of the message which Abdallah did not do.]

My response:

I didn't think of it like that when I captured the images.  And again, show me where Quennel Gale denied these images to be false?

He wrote:

Conclusion: What then, Mr. Abdallah, is the value of your so-called ‘IRREFUTABLE PROOF’?

Just as I wrote before: "... a whole lot of accusations, but lacking solid proof."

My response:

Ok, my proof may not have been totally "irrefutable" as you showed above, but nonetheless, you failed to show us the quote of Quennel Gale denying these images.   Quennel knows it, and I know it, and you also know it very well that he sent me those email bombs.  That's what really matters here if you are a truthful person.

All I did was a simple exposing of one of your team members' evil.  Did I commit a crime when I did that Mr. Katz?

He wrote:

Frankly, your site if full of bad manners, insults and offensive language. I am not going to discuss those because it would be a waste of my time to invest any major effort into such childish things.

My response:

It's not a major effort to quote few quotes and give their URL reference.  If you consider comments such as "polytheist pagan trinity" as offensive, then you obviously don't know your polytheist and man-worshiping religion.

The fact of the matter is, it's not comments of bad manners that I have on my site, but rather Truthful comments that powerful messages in them that upset you.

"Polytheist pagan trinity" does very well sum up your faith and puts it into its right category; along side with the far eastern polytheist pagan religions such as hinduism and others.

He wrote:

I have personally ignored your site all those years, because I have found nothing that really challenged my thinking.

My response:

These are the kind of arrogant remarks that make you look like a total fool when one reads the material on my site.

He wrote:

I only decided to respond to your "exposed lies of Answering Islam" page because a number of people emailed me regarding it and asked for answers to your accusations. I don't like writing the same answers many times, so I have finally written this page as a public response.

My response:

I am sure that people have emailed for a lot more articles than just this one.

He wrote:

I am interested in actual arguments of content. But if you have not really anything of substance to say, it would be obvious why you would make such a big deal of these kinds of issues.

My response:

I did not make a big deal out of these issues.  When one looks at my www.answering-christianity.com/whatsnew.htm page, he would see that all of my updates have to do with relevant articles about Islam and Christianity.

He wrote:

Your claim that Quennel Gale supposedly sent you some one hundred emails (not last week, but back in October 2000, nearly three years ago!) is apparently so crucially important for you, that you now talk about it in at least three different webpages (cf. *, *, *).

My response:

Nope.  It had shut Quennel's mouth and taught him a good lesson.  Mr. Katz the emails in these images were not the first from him.  He knows that and I know it.   He now knows that any email bomb he sends to me will be publicly documented against him, which will further discredit him and further make him lose respect among our community (the people who visit our sites and all of the Islamic and Christian sites related and linked to them).

He wrote:

In reality, it is irrelevant. Answering Islam is regularly spammed by Muslims. Additionally, we have gigabytes of log files documenting hacker attacks on our site. We not only get emails full of insults, but ever so often we are also honored to receive death threats. I could produce dozens and dozens of webpages documenting these, and could go on complaining without end about such issues! But would there be any gain from it? Will anyone have come closer to the truth of the message that we are presenting? Not one bit. Even if you can show that one or two or one hundred Christians (or Muslims) behaved badly, it has no consequence whatsoever for the question of truth of the Christian (or Muslim) faith. Thus, my recommendation to you: Start concentrating on what actually counts and forget the kindergarten behavior.

My response:

Can you ever imagine how many death threats and insults and email bombs using foul languages I received, especially after 9/11 and my public support to Osama bin Laden and the September 11 attack?  I never posted a single email on my site either!

As a matter of a fact I was told that my emails are being watched, and my chat room is resented because it can be used to help Al-Qaeda in communicating, since it's free and requires no registration.  Someone who claimed to be from "Home Land Security" (whether he is true or not) told me that.  Of course, I told him go to Hell.

Anyway, the reason why I posted Quennel Gale's, is because he is a clown from your team members.  I wanted to expose him and show how much of a joker he is.  That's all.

He wrote:

I have no responsibility for the private behavior of anyone but myself. I take some (editorial) responsibility for what is published on the site Answering-Islam.org (obviously, the main responsibility remains with the authors of the individual articles), but I am not the personal guardian of every Christian, whether he is associated with Answering Islam closely, loosly, or not at all.

My response:

Nobody said you were.

He wrote:

Finally, Quennel Gale is well able to respond himself to your accusations against him and does not need my help in this. In fact, he has done so already years ago, shortly after Osama first raised those accusations in September 2000. See Quennel Gale's link to ‘Exposing "Answering Christianity's" lies’ on his page False Muslim Allegations Refuted.

My response:

Quennel never denied sending me those email bombs.  The image of his personal email address produced an irrefutable proof at that time, especially that I had no knowledge what so ever in internet programming or web designing.  As you probably remember, my web site did not have a professional look to it.

He wrote:

In an email signature I recently found a statement that O. Abdallah may want to ponder:

Great minds discuss ideas
Average minds discuss events
Small minds discuss people

My response:

So much for your nonsensical arrogance Mr. Katz, I have developed great programs by the Will, Mercy and Guidance of Allah Almighty on my site.  These programs are:

1-  Web site Search.
2-  Noble Quran Search.
3-  Hadith Search.
4-  Offline Noble Quran Search Software.
5-  Chat Room - Named it after my son's name.
6-  Free Muslim Marriage Connection Service.
7-  Emailing capability for every article on my site.  See the "Email this article to a friend" push button on the top of this page.
8-  Voting polls [1] [2].

So, since I thought of and was able to implement these ideas Mr. Katz, then I guess that puts me in the "Great minds discuss ideas" category.  Plus not to mention that I am a Ph.D. student in Computer Science.  So in other words Mr. Katz, I still win and you lose.

No surprise, more objections by Abdallah also to this, claiming ...

None of these verses say what Abdallah is imagining. Nowhere is stated that people who sympathize with Islam, but neither testified to their faith by proclaiming the Shahada, nor ever pray in the Islamic way, nor fast during Ramadan, are nevertheless to be considered Muslims.

My response:

Yes it does Mr. Katz.  A person who never heard of Islam can be a Muslim if he believes in the One True Living GOD Almighty and associates no partners with Him.  A person who heard of Islam and Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him can also be a Muslim in the Sight of Allah Almighty if he also believes in GOD Almighty as the One True Living GOD Almighty and associates no partners with Him.

Islam Mr. Katz did not start with Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, but ended with him.

Always remember this when you debate about Islam.  Please visit: What is the Wisdom of Islam?

He wrote:

Verse 3:64 is only a call to Christians and Jews to come to some sort of agreement with the Muslims, particularly to accept that Muslims are actually worshipping none but God. Jews and Christians who know their scriptures will NOT agree to that.

My response:

Let us look at Noble Verse 3:64:

"Say: 'O People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians)!    Come to common terms as between us and you:  That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah.'  If then they turn back, say ye: 'Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).'  (The Noble Quran, 3:64)"

Why wouldn't Jews and Christians who know their scriptures agree with that Mr. Katz?

He wrote:

In this passage the author of the Qur'an commands the Muslims to go to the Christians with this request: Even if you do not accept Islam in all its aspects and become Muslims, at least accept that WE worship Allah (the one Creator God). Nowhere does this passage state that those Christians who may actually agree to this request are then to be considered Muslims as well.

My response:

Like I said Mr. Katz, Islam ended with Prophet Muhammad.  It did not start with him:

"Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.  (The Noble Quran, 112:1-4)" 

"And behold! I inspired the Disciples to have faith in Me [Allah] and Mine Messenger [Jesus]; they said, ''We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to Allah as Muslims.'  (The Noble Quran, 5:111)"

"God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (The Noble Quran, 4:48)"

"Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend.  (The Noble Quran, 4:125)"

He wrote:

The part that Abdallah put in bold is a description of the Muslims, not of the Christians. And it does NOT say that this is ALL that is required to be a Muslim.

My response:

No really, that is all to be considered a Muslim and win Salvation in the Sight of Allah Almighty.

He wrote:

It is a request made to the people of the book that they may concede at least to the stated acknowledgment. It is not a definition of who is a Muslim.

My response:

The Noble Verse was a definition of "Muslim" Mr. Katz.  The following Noble Verse further proves my point:

"Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend.  (The Noble Quran, 4:125)"

If you follow the way of Abraham peace be upon him Mr. Katz, then may Allah Almighty's peace, mercy and blessings be upon you as well.

But if you follow the polytheist trinity paganism, then I am afraid the following Noble Verse applies to you:

"God forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with God is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed. (The Noble Quran, 4:48)"

He wrote:

Anyway: What about Bucaille and the "worship of Allah"? Despite all his positive remarks about the Qur'an and the person of Muhammad, nowhere in this article referred to by Abdallah does Bucaille state that HE worships or prays to Allah. Thus, even Abdallah's own minimalist definition of a Muslim is not satisfied by Bucaille.

My response:

I think I have answered this sufficiently above.

He wrote:

All the other verses are even less relevant. They only make the repetitive claim that the Qur'an contains signs for those who reflect. But it never says that those who reflect are therefore automatically Muslims. It is rather sad to see that I do have to explain even the Qur'an to Abdallah.

My response:

Those Noble Verses Mr. Katz are referring to what we call "Philosophers".   Those who love to philosophize things and ponder and reflect on things, will find Great Signs in the Noble Quran for them.  Please visit:  The Scientific Miracles and Discoveries in the Noble Quran.

He wrote:

Abdallah is free to invent his own definition of a Muslim, but he cannot legitimately accuse us of lying if we fail to follow his idiosyncratic definition. According to the common definition of what constitutes conversion to Islam, there is no evidence that Bucaille ever became a Muslim.

My response:

Again, I think I have answered this sufficiently above.

He wrote:

Ironically, exactly two weeks earlier (08/01/2003) Abdallah published another article in which he wrote:

As to the five pillars of Islam, they are: (1) "Al-Shahadatyn", which means the "Two Bearing of Witnesses". In order for a person to embrace Islam, he would have to say: "I bear witness that there is no GOD but Allah, and Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger". ... (bold and underline emphasis mine)

It is rather obvious, Abdallah doesn't know what he really believes, and in each new argument he claims what seems to be the most expedient at the time, contradicting himself as he stumbles along.

My response:

No Mr. Katz, I did not contradict myself.  There is a difference between a person who embraces Islam and a person who is considered a Muslim.  To us humans a Muslim is often one who follows the Noble Quran as the Divine Holy Word of GOD Almighty, and believes that Muhammad was His Messenger.  But like I said above, Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him did not start Islam, but ended it. 

If a person is convinced that Muhammad was GOD Almighty's Messenger, then he should embrace Islam through the "Shahadatyn".  Otherwise, it is up to Allah Almighty to determine whether that person is a Muslim or not.

I hope that explains it well to you and to the reader.  Again, please visit: What is the Wisdom of Islam?

O. Abdallah disagreed and was not able understand why on earth I would call his accusations ‘a fairy tale’. Well, let me be explicit and quote Abdallah's first paragraph in his ‘fourth lie’:

1. Everyone except Mr. Abdallah can see that this paragraph contains accusations that Mr. Gale is supposedly claiming something, but that Abdallah does not give exact quotations from or references to the pages where these alleged claims are made. That is what I call a fairy tale. There is nothing that I or anyone could examine to determine whether Abdallah's accusations are true or not. Therefore, the accusations are unproven and do not warrant any reply. Apart from that: "Who cares?" The whole claim is silly anyway and not worth wasting time on.

My response:

Ok Mr. Katz, I see your point and I apologize.  But if you asked Quennel Gale, then he wouldn't have denied it.  Again, I was specifically talking about him and his previous posting on his site.  I did not make up any lie Mr. Katz.  My failure to provide a reference for this one does not prove that I was a liar.  Quennel Gale knows well that he made this accusation.  If you bring me a quote from him testifying on the Bible that he did not do it, then we will have a different situation. 

But still, you're right.  I failed to provide the proofs to set this straight once and for all.  It's my fault and I apologize.

He wrote:

2. I am not responsible for Mr. Gale. This has already been explained in the discussion of the alleged spamming.

My response:

Like I said above, nobody said you were Mr. Katz.