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?
