Terrorism in the Quran or The Bible?

 

Responding to yet another failure of Saami Zaatari

 

(Round 4)

 

By Quennel Gale

 

 

 

 

Quennal Gale has come up with yet another supposed rebuttal against me, his supposed rebuttal can be found here:

 

http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html

 

Quenn did post this rebuttal of his to me some time ago, but I choose to ignore it for a while since I did not really feel he addressed anything so I felt it would have been a waste of my time. But since I don’t want to give this missionary the impression that he has won the debate I decided to respond now to crush his response yet again.

 

Response:

 

Sami Zaatari has finally decided to write a rebuttal to my article listed above. He begins with the usual excuse of “he didn’t feel like I addressed anything therefore I decided to wait” but magically after a long period of time “he finally decides to respond because there is no way possible that I should be seen as winning this argument”. If Zaatari believes that a non-response to my material constitutes as a lost debate then he is doing a poor job because he failed to address these articles:

 

http://answer-islam.org/honor_of_jesus.html

 

http://answer-islam.org/zaataribible.html

 

http://answer-islam.org/god_has_god.html

 

I’m sure Zaatari is giving me the impression of winning since the only topic he’s seemingly able to discuss is the issue of “Islam and Terrorism”. While Zaatari is busy trying to defend the Quran it’s very interesting to see his Sunni and Shia Muslim brethren, in Iraq, killing each other, justifying their actions with very same book. My job isn’t trying to win debates but presenting the truth and supporting it with factual information. One can win a debate and still be factually wrong or lose a debate and be factually right. Winning is based on truth not emotional highs achieved through endless debating.

 

Quick note: I noticed Mr. Zaatari has been spelling my name as Quennal instead of Quennel. I purposely believe he is doing this as an insult since he is quite familiar with the correct spelling of my name. Until he stops misrepresenting my name, I will now call him Sarah instead of Sami. Let’s see if he will appreciate this.

 

 

Quennal Gale's words will be in red followed by responses in black.

 

Saami Zaatari has finally finished his response to my articles in which I refuted his gross ignorance on both the Biblical verses which he claims promote terror along with other related issues. Mr. Zaatari obviously had to really take the time and think over his material since it literally took him over a month to formulate a response. He exchanged emails with me weeks ago saying how his material would be out in a couple of days but for some strange reason these days turn into weeks and finally over a month. As usual Mr. Zaatari has managed to corner himself and contradict his own statements that he made in his previous articles, as we shall illustrate here in great detail.

 

Quennal Gale begins his article by trying to be smart, which as usual backfires against him; Quennal Gale was saying that I had such a hard time in refuting his 3rd rebuttal to me because my rebuttal against his 3rd rebuttal came out about 3-4 weeks after he published it. Let me silence Quenn on that and prove that this mean is a serious fool, you see folks I usually write a rebuttal within one to two days after someone publishes something against me, and this is what I was doing with Quennal Gale, when he first started writing against me I would have a rebuttal out within two days, Quennal Gale was so upset and fearful of this that he cried saying:

 

Response:

 

Zaatari honestly needs to utilize spell check before publishing his articles, because incoherent statements such as “Let me silence Quenn on that and prove that this mean is a serious fool… only serves to undermine the clarity of what’s being discussed. Prove “that this mean is a serious fool” needs no further comment! Secondly, how can Sarah Zaatari prove that I am a fool when he can’t even write coherent sentences? But enough small talk lets actually look at what Zaatari wrote:

 

Wow it seems like Saami Zaatari is very desperate; he couldn’t even wait until I finished my second part of my response this weekend before he responded <http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm> (http://answer-islam.org/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.html)

 

So note when I did reply very quickly this loser started crying I was desperate, when I took my time he claims that I find his articles so hard which is why it took me so long to release my rebuttal. This proves that these missionaries are very sick in the head, because no matter what you do they will bark against you, if you respond quickly against them they claim you are desperate, if you take your time they claim we found their material so hard and challenging and put a smirk on their face. What can I say to that?

 

Response:

 

If Zaatari is using this as evidence to mean ‘is a serious fool’ (I still can’t stop laughing at how amusing this sounds) or that I’m a serious fool, then he failed to note some important aspects to his reader. 1. The reason I made my first comments relating to the first part of his material is because Zaatari didn’t give me time to respond to his very long piece (which is why I broke it up into two parts). This does show desperation on Zaatari’s part because his initial argument, in which he was given the time to write, didn’t allow for a response in like manner. Zaatari likes to publish material and not allow a counter response within a reasonable timeframe for the sake of not giving the impression of not losing a debate. If you notice my comments I only took a weekend to write my material not several weeks or months, as Zaatari did with a few of his later rebuttals. There would no need to accuse Zaatari of being desperate if he allowed me a reasonable time to respond to his material. However, if Zaatari were very capable of refuting my article why would he wait weeks or months to respond to it?

 

 

However, Zaatari apparently likes playing up to the theory that “missionaries are sick in the head” simply because he could’ve avoided this illusion of me winning the debate simply by responding to the article in a timely manner. If missionaries are sick in the head, for believing that a delayed response is a lost debate what exactly is Mr. Zaatari who is familiar with this thinking but yet plays along with it? Sick in the head! As we proceed with his rebuttal we find Mr. Zaatari again embarrassing himself:

 

 

But you see folks, the joke is on Quenn himself, because you see folks in my last rebuttal to Quenn my rebuttal was a TWO part rebuttal, Quennal was barking and acting so smart by saying it took me so long to write my rebuttal when in fact he COMPLETLY IGNORED AND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO MY REBUTTAL! That rebuttal which Quenn failed to respond to and has yet to respond to can be found here:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennalgale_3_2.htm

 

Response:

 

If the joke is on me for not answering this one particular article then Zaatari needs to explain why he failed to answer these three articles, below:

 

http://answer-islam.org/honor_of_jesus.html

 

http://answer-islam.org/zaataribible.html

 

http://answer-islam.org/god_has_god.html

 

These rebuttals were directly addressed to him and could easily be viewed in the “New Section” of my website. In Zaatari’s very own words, “he COMPLETELY IGNORED AND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO MY REBUTTALS” (Plural folks)! Apparently the joke is threefold or should I say he received his three strikes and now he’s out! Hence, Ms. Zaatari must be a class clown because he was “acting so smart and barking while failing to respond to my material”. As for Zaatari’s article, I believe he said it best so we reference his own comments with him in mind:

 

Zaatari did post this rebuttal of his to me some time ago, but I choose to ignore it for a while since I did not really feel he addressed anything so I felt it would have been a waste of my time.

 

When I reviewed his article I’d notice that Zaatari failed to provide any sound arguments to my original material, he only attacked me personally instead of addressing the issues at hand. One perfect example from his article can be seen here:

 

My Response

I would like to thank Quenn for exposing himself yet again. His argument is now saying if YOU DRINK ALOT then this leads to damage. However so, it seems he does not read the quotes carefully. Here is one of them again:

Women who consume as few as two drinks per day are at increased risk of developing high blood pressure. (5)

With as few as two or three drinks a day, a woman is at increased risk of dying from liver disease, cancer or injury. (5)

Does this sound like a lot to you? AS FEW as 2 drinks a day can cause you a lot of harm. Many people to drink 1 to 2 glasses of alcohol everyday, this is what they call MODERATE DRINKING, this is not classified as excessive drinking. So hence thank you for showing us how you do not know how to read. (http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennalgale_3_2.htm)

 

Here, Zaatari fails to read what I actually said. He begins with an “ad homenin” by alleging that I exposed myself because “I drink a lot” therefore leading to damage. I’m surprise that Zaatari, who’s never once laid eyes on me, can know my drinking habits. But this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the topic of “The Bible and Alcohol”. While Zaatari is spending his time on personal attacks he apparently doesn’t realize that “you” can refer TO BOTH MEN AND WOMEN but the quote he attacks only deals women drinking two or three drinks a day. Zaatari then proceeds to use “2 drinks per day in reference to women only” to apply to everyone!

 

The quote only says women are at increased risk of developing high blood pressure, cancer, or liver disease not that drinking two drinks a day AUTOMATICALLY GIVES YOU THESE DISEASES. Never mind the fact that Zaatari ignored all of the positive quotes given to support the modest drinking of alcohol and instead choose to focus on the negative. Every woman who perhaps drunk two or three times per day didn’t develop these diseases. If so, the quote would have guaranteed that these symptoms would occur.

 

 

This is the equivalent of saying, because Muslims consume beef, they would increase their risk of getting colon cancer and other related digestive problems!

 

 

Does every Muslim who consumes beef develop colon cancer, mad cow disease or other digestive problems just because they eat beef and in many instances beef isn’t good for you and Allah sanctioned it? If we use Zaatari’s logic we’d be forced to conclude this is the case all the time! Since Allah is all-knowing and knew the dangers of alcohol why would he allow Muslims to eat beef when all these potential dangers can affect their health? Would Zaatari believe us if we point all of the negative effects of beef and ignore the positive in seeking to use the argument “Allah is evil for instituting the consumption of beef because of the potential dangers it poses to the body”?  

 

Now you see why such foolish and illogical debating is a waste of our time and energy. Zaatari is basically saying an increase risk of something is the same as having the symptom while ignoring the potential good of the item. Just like Alcohol, all foods and beverages have good and bad risk associated with them! That’s how his pagan gawd made it right? Hilarious!

 

 

This rebuttal completely wiped the floor with Quenn and he did not even bother in replying to it as he should have, so talk about STUPID! This guy was trying to laugh at me when the joke is really on him! And since Quenn is fond of saying how long it takes for someone to write a reply, it is now roughly 6 months since I released that rebuttal, and Quennal Gale has yet to respond to it, so using this fools logic this means he has really hit a brick wall and has been shut down by my third rebuttal. Some advice to Quenn and I mean it, please stop making a fool out of yourself, since that is what you have done over and over again in your rebuttals to me.

 

Response:

 

Now let’s continue with Zaatari’s joke. Since I’m stupid for not replying along with taking six months to respond to his material, I’m sure Zaatari is going to love this:

 

http://answer-islam.org/honor_of_jesus.html   Posted on my site 6/20/06, great 6 months! The joke is on Zaatari and he is stupid because he failed to respond to it. Some advice to Ms. Zaatari, stop making a fool out of yourself!!

 

http://answer-islam.org/zaataribible.html   Posted on my site 2/24/06, Whoa 10 months! The joke is on Zaatari and he is stupid because he failed to respond to it. Some advice to Ms. Zaatari, stop making a fool out of yourself!!

 

 

http://answer-islam.org/god_has_god.html  Posted on my site 2/7/06, Whoa 10 months! The joke is on Zaatari and he is stupid because he failed to respond to it. Some advice to Ms. Zaatari, stop making a fool out of yourself!! (http://www.answer-islam.org/New.html)         

 

Need I say more? These rebuttals completely wiped the floor with Zaatari and he didn’t even bother replying to it as he should have, so talk about STUPID!

 

 

For readers who have not followed this long debate between me and Quenn please visit these rebuttals:

 

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/continuation_to_quennals_response.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennalgale_3_2.htm

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_4.htm

 

Actually I did more than respond to what Zaatari posted; I used his very own criteria to refute his very claims. Notice that Zaatari calls all of his own words and my analysis of them “red-herrings”. Of course, Mr. Zaatari fails to show how these are red-herrings other than just stating this as some “established fact”. We will repost it to show you just why he didn’t want his readers to view it:

 

I first wrote how Muhammad beheaded the boys of the Banu Qurayzah tribe:

Al-Tabari also mentioned that Muhammad had the young boys of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah beheaded:

 

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, p. 38)

 

Another source tells us how they determined whether a person had reached puberty:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)

From (Source <http://answer-islam.org/childkiller.html>)

 

Notice how Quennal Gale's own source refutes him! Quennal Gale adds his own commentary to a text that says something he doesn’t, not Quenn says that the prophet Muhammad had the young boys beheaded, yet the text tells us that the men who had reached puberty had been executed, how convenient that Quenn leaves this out. Under God's eyes boys who reach puberty and who are going through puberty are no longer considered as children or kids, they are considered as young men, not children, this is what Quennal keeps on forgetting. Secondly Quennal Gale needs to learn a bit about Islamic history, since it was not the prophet Muhammad who ordered this execution, rather it was a former Jewish man who was an ally of the Banu Qurayza clan:

 

Response:

 

Zaatari starts right off with a self destructive response that’s beyond belief. He is again changing his stance by saying that I’m wrong for arguing that young boys were beheaded when the text mentions no such thing. Apparently Zaatari forgot his previous comments on this very same issue in which he tried to defend these young boys being beheaded by saying this:

 

My Response

The reason this was done was because the tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So THEY WERE RIGHTFULLY PUNISHED, also even this episode doesn’t compare with the Bible. Unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad spared the women and kids, whereas the Bible just killed the women and the children.

Also BOYS who had passed puberty back then were considered as men, so THOSE BOYS who had passed puberty WERE TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS since their tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So hence Quenn has nothing again. The people who were killed were not innocent, so hence there is no crime. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm (Emphasis ours)          

 

In his previous statement Zaatari argued that “these boys”, notice he called them boys, were beheaded! His argument focuses on how puberty makes them enemy combatants, whether they fought in a war against Muhammad or not. I challenged Zaatari to show me anywhere in the Quran where God said that “boys who reached puberty” were considered men. This is an assumption not validated by any shred of evidence whatsoever. After all his posturing Zaatari has yet to justify the idea that Allah viewed these boys as men because they began puberty and that ALL OF THEM FOUGHT MUHAMMAD. That’s why I said in my last paper that:

 

Mr. Zaatari obviously has a dilemma because in trying to defend the beheading of the “young boys” of the Banu Qurayzah he claimed that if they passed puberty “they were considered enemy combatants” and deserved to be beheaded! Notice that Zaatari hasn’t presented corroborating data from Islamic history to show that the entire tribe fought against the Muslims and has therefore not proven that “all of these enemy combatants” actually fought Muhammad. Hence, we can conclude that boys who were considered “enemy combatants” who necessarily didn’t fight in a war WERE BEHEADED just because they fit in this group. To show you how this is further substantiated we turn to Zaatari’s very own comments further down in this article in reference to Surah 17:

 

Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is invent this lie on his own!

 

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

 

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

 

Notice that according to Zaatari’s very own words:

 

1.      1.      It must be mentioned that women and children are killed and that if it isn’t mention Zaatari assumes that it didn’t happen.

 

So using this logic we must ask Zaatari this:

 

Where exactly did the Hadith’s or Islamic history OR THE QURAN (since you only believe things found in it) mention that the “young boys” fought against Muhammad and that “they were considered enemy combatants”?

 

It is obvious that when trying to defend Islam Zaatari will read things into the Islamic texts THAT ARE NOT EVEN IN THE TEXT! In his words and logic:

 

Note non of the passages he posts state anything about young boys being “enemy combatants along with fighting Muhammad”, all Zaatari does is invent this lie on his own!  (http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html)                 

 

The theory of Allah “considering these boys as men based on puberty” hasn’t been established by Zaatari. This is something he conjured up himself. When I asked Zaatari to show me where all these men or boys fought against Muhammad which, according to him, would deserve for them to be beheaded he finally discovered that Sa’d rendered this judgment against the tribe after months of jibber jabber. It is very apparent that he was ignorant of this fact earlier because he could’ve just stated this in the beginning and saved himself the trouble. As for me being wrong in believing that Muhammad ordered the beheadings, please keep reading for later on in my paper I show you that it wasn’t me who’s ignorant of Islamic history but Zaatari:

 

 

The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah

 

We have already noted that when the Confederates came and camped outside Al-Madinah, Banu Qurayzah broke the covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of Allah . This happened by the agency of Huyay bin Akhtab An-Nadari, may Allah curse him, who entered their stronghold and would not leave their leader, Ka`b bin Asad, alone until he agreed to break the covenant. Among the things that he said to him was, "Woe to you! This is the opportunity for glory. The Quraysh and their company of men from various tribes, and the Ghatafan and their followers, have come to you, and they will stay here until they eliminate Muhammad and his companions.'' Ka`b said to him, "No, by Allah, this is the opportunity for humiliation. Woe to you, O Huyay, you are a bad omen. Leave us alone.'' But Huyay kept trying to persuade him until he agreed to his request. He laid down the condition that if the Confederates went away without doing anything, he [Huyay] would join them in their stronghold and would share their fate. When Banu Qurayzah broke their covenant and news of this reached the Messenger of Allah , he and the Muslims were very distressed by that. When Allah helped him by suppressing his enemy and driving them back disappointed and lost, having gained nothing, the Messenger of Allah returned to Al-Madinah in triumph and the people put down their weapons. While the Messenger of Allah was washing off the dust of battle in the house of Umm Salamah, may Allah be pleased with her, Jibril, upon him be peace, came to him wearing a turban of brocade, riding on a mule on which was a cloth of silk brocade. He said, "Have you put down your weapons, O Messenger of Allah'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But the angels have not put down their weapons. I have just now come back from pursuing the people.'' Then he said: "Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, commands you to get up and go to Banu Qurayzah.'' According to another report, "What a fighter you are! Have you put down your weapons'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "But we have not put down our weapons yet, get up and go to these people.'' He said: "Where'' He said, "Banu Qurayzah, for Allah has commanded me to shake them.'' So the Messenger of Allah got up immediately, and commanded the people to march towards Banu Qurayzah, who were a few miles from Al-Madinah. This was after Salat Az-Zuhr. He said,

 

«??? ???????????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????????? ????? ?????????»(No one among you should pray `Asr except at Banu Qurayzah.) So, the people set out, and the time for the prayer came while they were still on the road. Some of them prayed on the road, saying, "The Messenger of Allah only wanted to make us march quickly.'' Others said, "We will not pray it until we reach Banu Qurayzah.'' Neither of the two groups were rebuked for what they did. The Messenger of Allah followed them. He left Ibn Umm Maktum, may Allah be pleased with him, in charge of Al-Madinah, and he had given the flag to `Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. Then the Messenger of Allah went to them (Banu Qurayzah) laying seige to them for twenty-five days. When this had gone on for too long, they agreed to accept the judgement of Sa`d bin Mu`adh, the leader of `Aws because they had been their allies during the Jahiliyyah, so they thought that he would treat them kindly as `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul had done for his allies of Banu Qaynuqa` when he had asked the Messenger of Allah to set them free. So, these people thought that Sa`d would do the same for them as Ibn Ubayy had done for those people. They did not know that Sa`d had been struck by an arrow in his medial arm vein during the campaign of Al-Khandaq. The Messenger of Allah had had his vein cauterized and had brought him to stay in a tent in the Masjid so that he could keep a close eye on him. One of the things that Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said in his supplication was, "O Allah, if there is still anything that has to do with the war against Quraysh, then keep me alive for it, and if You decree that the war between us and them is over, then let the bleeding be renewed, but do not let me die until I get my satisfaction with regard to Banu Qurayzah.'' Allah answered his prayer and decreed that they would agree to be referred to him for judgement, and this was their own free choice. When this happened, the Messenger of Allah called him to come from Al-Madinah to pass judgement on them. When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the `Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, "O Sa`d, they are your clients so be kind to them, trying to soften his heart.'' But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, "Now it is time for Sa`d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.'' Then they knew that he would not let them live. kWhen he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah was, the Messenger of Allah said:

 

«??????? ????? ??????????»(Stand up for your leader.) So the Muslims stood up for him, and welcomed him with honor and respect as befitted his status and so that his judgement would have more impact. When he sat down, the Messenger of Allah said:

«????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ???? ???????? ????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ????? ?????»(These people) -- and he pointed to them -- (have agreed to accept your judgement, so pass judgement on them as you wish.) Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement will be carried out'' The Messenger of Allah said: "Yes.'' He said, "And it will be carried out on those who are in this tent'' He said, "Yes.'' He said, "And on those who are on this side'' -- and he pointed towards the side where the Messenger of Allah was, but he did not look directly at the Messenger of Allah out of respect for him. The Messenger of Allah said to him: "Yes.'' So Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said: "My judgement is that their fighters should be killed and their children and wealth should be seized.'' The Messenger of Allah said:

 

«?????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????????»(You have judged according to the ruling of Allah from above the seven heavens.) According to another report:

 

«?????? ???????? ???????? ????????»(You have judged according to the ruling of the Sovereign.) Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. All of this is stated both briefly and in detail, with evidence and Hadiths, in the book of Sirah which we have written, praise and blessings be to Allah. Allah said:

 

[????????? ????????? ???????????](And those who backed them, Allah brought them down) means, those who helped and supported them in their war against the Messenger of Allah .

 

[????? ?????? ??????????](of the People of the Scripture) means, Banu Qurayzah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Hijaz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrah and Injil.

 

[???????? ???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ????](then when there came to them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it) (2:89). May the curse of Allah be upon them.

 

[??? ????????????](from their forts) means, from their strongholds. This was the view of Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Qatadah, As-Suddi and others of the Salaf.

 

[???????? ??? ??????????? ?????????](and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. They wanted to eradicate the Muslims but they were themselves eradicated. In addition to all this, they are doomed in the Hereafter, so by all acounts they are counted as losers. Allah says:

 

[???????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????](a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, "I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.'' This was also recorded by the Sunan compilers, and At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Sahih.'' An-Nasa'i also recorded something similar from `Atiyah.

 

[?????????????? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????????](And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches,) means, `He gave these things to you after you killed them.'

 

[????????? ????? ??????????](and a land which you had not trodden.) It was said that this was Khaybar, or that it was the lands of the Persians and Romans. Ibn Jarir said, "It could be that all of these are referred to

 

[??????? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????????](And Allah is able to do all things.)'' (Ibn Kathir's tafsir)

 

So several things are to be noted, firstly it was not the prophet Muhammad who had ordered this execution, rather it was Sa'd who was an ally to the Banu Qurayza, and it was the Jews who had called on Sa'd to pass judgement on them! So Quenn must read his sources more carefully next time and I am sure he did not miss this point, but simply conveniently left it out.

 

Response:

 

Zaatari doesn’t read his sources closely. We don’t disagree that Sa’d passed judgment on this tribe but what the reader should know is the circumstances leading up to this event; from his source:

 

So, these people thought that Sa`d would do the same for them as Ibn Ubayy had done for those people. THEY DID NOT KNOW that Sa`d had been struck by an arrow in his medial arm vein during the campaign of Al-Khandaq. The Messenger of Allah had had his vein cauterized and had brought him to stay in a tent in the Masjid so that he could keep a close eye on him. One of the things that Sa`d, may Allah be pleased with him, said in his supplication was, "O Allah, if there is still anything that has to do with the war against Quraysh, then keep me alive for it, and if You decree that the war between us and them is over, then let the bleeding be renewed, but do not let me die until I get my satisfaction with regard to Banu Qurayzah.'' Allah answered his prayer and decreed that they would agree to be referred to him for judgement, and this was their own free choice. When this happened, the Messenger of Allah called him to come from Al-Madinah to pass judgement on them. When he arrived, riding on a donkey that had been specially equipped for him to ride, some of the `Aws began to urge him not to be too harsh, saying, "O Sa`d, they are your clients so be kind to them, trying to soften his heart.'' But he kept quiet and did not answer them. When they persisted in their request, he said, "Now it is time for Sa`d to make sure that no rebuke or censure will divert him from the path of Allah.'' Then they knew that he would not let them live. When he reached the tent where the Messenger of Allah was, the Messenger of Allah said:

 

At this time Sa’d was an ally of Muhammad and he wanted revenge on this tribe. His judgment, which Muhammad validated as Allah’s decree, was based on personal revenge and hatred from a previous battle he chose to participate in! Sa’d was not an ally to this tribe because he wouldn’t have allowed his personal feelings to get in the way and spared them! Since Zaatari is pacifist and is against vengeful killing and war, I’m surprise his prophet allowed a vengeful man to render God’s alleged decree against this tribe. Hence, Allah is no more different then the picture Zaatari tries to portray of the Biblical God in this instance. Basically, Zaatari has proven to us that Muhammad used blood thirsty and vengeful killers as the judgment and decree of his god. In relation to my lack of understanding of Islamic tradition, Zaatari is wrong by saying that the Islamic traditions didn’t mention that Muhammad had these people killed:

 

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, p. 38)

 

The quote I used comes from the “History of Al-Tabari. This Muslim online bookstore has this to say about the history of Al Tabari:

 

The History of Prophets and Kings by Tabari, here rendered as the History of al-Tabari, is by common consent the most important universal history produced in the world of Islam. (Source)

 

I didn’t overlook anything or get anything incorrect; I quoted from the most important historical book in Islam. I can’t help it if Zaatari’s Islamic texts contradict each other. His religion is nothing more than the product of his prophet’s imagination so I would expect this.

 

 

Secondly notice how they kept the children ALIVE, and the women as well, the ones who were killed were only the ones who had gone through puberty and were going through puberty, hence no children were killed. So therefore Quennal Gale has no case and he knows it himself, yet he will keep trying to build one which is fun and amusing to watch. What Quennal has to show is young boys who had not gone through puberty being killed, including little babies, this we find in the Bible:

 

Actually I do have a case; the Hadith says this about Muhammad killing children:

 

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)

 

I.e., they are all the same—both the women and children are nothing more than pagans! The above narration is repeated in several, different hadith collections:

 

Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE

 

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)

 

Keep in mind that the subheading is not part of the narration, it is added by the collector of the hadiths. In other words, the statement regarding the killing of women and children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate is not part of the narration. The hadiths do not explicitly say this, and yet the compiler assumed that this was the clear implication and meaning of these narrations.

 

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4322)

 

Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4323)

 

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664) (Ibid)

 

As you can clearly see, killing children and women is permissible in Islam. Mr. Zaatari is wrong because he is arguing from the belief that this prohibition is absolute when Islamic sources clearly show that there were certain cases in which it could be done and is actually encouraged. If you look at Muhammad’s response, he wasn’t overly concerned that women and children died among the pagan population, he only claimed, “oh well, they are apart of them”, in other words, they were “guilty by association”. Even if we take into account the hadiths used in his defense, logically we must conclude that killing of children is permissible in special circumstances. This would bring us back to step one!

 

Zaatari would have us to believe that Muhammad used puberty as a basis in every war he fought however there were many times in which he killed children whether this was a factor or not. Later on Muhammad was not allowed to kill children but this was only in SOME MATTERS:

 

Narrated 'Abdullah:

During SOME OF THE GHAZAWAT of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257)

 

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During SOME OF THE GHAZAWAT of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258)

 

For those who don’t know what “ghazawat” is it refers to battles of Muhammad as this source show:

 

Ghazw or Ghazah (plural ghazawāt) (Arabic: غزو) is an Arabic term initially referring to the battles in which the Muslim prophet Muhammad personally participated.^[1] It has since evolved into the term for battle associated with the expansion of Muslim territory. The term ghazi or Warrior for the faith came to represent participants in these later battles^[2] and is cognate with the terms ghāziya and maghāzī.

Sirya (plural Saraya) were battles which Muhammad commissioned but did not participate in, and also the name for the usually mounted raiding and reconnaissance expeditions he commissioned but did not participate in.^[2]

Ba'atha differed from Saraya in size, and while were sometimes combative were generally expeditions or missions primarily diplomatic in nature (i.e couriers or political exchanges).^[2]

In English language literature the word often appears as razzia, deriving from the French word razzier (rezzou) which entered the language at the time of the French colonization of North Africa, and which is itself a transliteration of the colloquial Arabic word ghazya. "Ghazawat" in some Muslim countries has the meaning of "Judgement". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghazw)    

 

Zaatari has used the very above hadiths to argue that Muhammad forbade the killing of children totally as we illustrated below:

 

YUSUFALI: And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"

So does anyone else see the difference? The Bible commanded people to kill women and children, the Quran commands people to fight for women and children. Big difference between the two.

Also from my standpoint, I never feel that I have to justify the Islamic wars fought during the time of Muhammad by bringing up the OT; the reason to this is because I do not feel there is anything slightly wrong with what Muhammad did during the wars. The same cannot be said for the OT, the Christians must have to justify every war in the Bible as it allowed the killing of women and children.

As I said, the prophet Muhammad forbade the killing of women and children:

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.

Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

From reading these hadiths, what exactly do I have to justify or defend? The prophet Muhammad said DO NOT KILL women and kids. – (http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm )    

 

These hadiths at best only provide a contradiction of how Muhammad felt about the killing of women and children. In one passage his is shown to “disapprove” of such actions. This would mean that he personally didn’t like the action but didn’t necessarily forbid them because he knew in certain instances it was necessary. However, the very next hadith mentions that he forbid it! How convenient! Let’s look closely at the hadiths Zaatari used in his defense. In the beginning of both it is mentioned:

 

During SOME OF THE GHAZAWAT

 

A woman was found killed, so Muhammad disapproved or forbade the killing of children. In modern English this is like saying:

 

During SOME OF THE BATTLES OR JUDGMENTS …Muhammad disapproved or forbade the killing of women and children.

 

One way we can perhaps interpret these hadiths is that Muhammad’s forbiddance to kill women and children wasn’t absolute. What’s even more amusing is that Zaatari got on me for saying that “Some” can’t refer to “ALL” in any instance as we show here:

 

Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

 

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

 

Zaatari is expressively clear in holding that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which wouldn’t be inclusive of everything. Zaatari is doing the very same thing he claims I did earlier assuming that

 

ALL is SOME

 

Since when did SOME OF MUHAMMAD’S BATTLES become ALL OF HIS BATTLES FORBIDDING THE KILLING OF CHILDREN? Sarah Zaatari claimed that Muhammad said “don’t kill women and children” when this only happened SOME OF THE TIME. Hence, at best Zaatari has only proven that Muhammad forbid killing women and children SOME OF THE TIME! So one must ask when we are allowed to kill children. The Quran has the answer:

 

"So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, ‘What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing’ ... ‘And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and WE FEARED LEST ON GROWING UP HE SHOULD INVOLVE THEM INTO TROUBLE THROUGH REBELLION AND DISBELIEF;’" S. 18:74, 80 Sher Ali

 

This agrees perfectly with the Hadith:

 

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)

 

We can’t be accused of falsifying this allegation since both the Hadith and Quran prove what we’ve said. This is simply amazing! In Islam you are allowed to kill children if you believe that they will grow up and become unbelievers! This leaves the entire discretion to the person who is deciding to kill the child in question! What if the Muslim made a mistake killing a child who may look like a disbeliever but may actually grow up to be a believer in Muhammad? It would be too late to try to then bring the child back from the dead.

 

Hence, in orthodox Islam, not the so-called radical or fanatical Islam, a Muslim can kill an innocent child if it is deemed as being necessary for the betterment of Allah's society! Now we know why the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon had no ill feelings about the acts they committed, which in turn took the lives of innocent children. They were just being obedient to the laws and regulations of Islam!

 

The Quranic Moses' companion justifies the killing of a young innocent boy on the grounds that the boy may have grown up to be a rebellious unbeliever which agrees perfectly with the above cited Hadith. If Zaatari has problems with the Holy Bible he needs to take issue with his own book since it condones the killing of a young boy who may have, or may have not, grown up to be a disbeliever. Since Allah had a man kill a boy, which obviously included some kind of violence and pain, would Zaatari now claim that his god is cruel and a bloody murderer? To be consistent he must! Both the Quran and the Hadith are on agreement; killing of a child is condoned if a Muslim believes the child will be a disbeliever in his life. No wonder why the Shia and the Sunnis murder each other mercilessly in Iraq!

 

What is more amusing is that Zaatari has now resorted to using the Bible to, particularly Isaiah 13 to somehow prove that it sponsors the killing of innocent children!

 

 

Isaiah 13:15-18

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

 

John Gill commentary:

15

Every one that is found shall be thrust through…

With a sword, spear, or lance, and be slain; that is, everyone that is found in the city of Babylon; and so the Targum adds,

 

``and everyone that is found in it shall be slain;''

 

so Kimchi, in the midst of it, or without; in the street, as Jarchi. The orders of Cyrus F8 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=015> were, that those that were found without (in the streets) should be slain; and to proclaim in the Syriac language, that those that were within doors should continue there, but, if they were found without, they should be put to death; which orders were executed, and well agrees with this prophecy:

 

and everyone that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword;

or "added" unto them; any of other nations that joined them as auxiliaries, see (Revelation 18:4 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=re+18:4>) or "that is gathered"; so the Septuagint, "they that are gathered"; that are gathered together in a body to resist the enemy, and defend themselves. Some render the word, "every one that is consumed", with age; neither old nor young, as follows, should be spared.

 

The Targum is,

``everyone that enters into the fortified cities,''

flees there for safety and protection.

 

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their
eyes…

Upon the ground, or against the wall, as was foretold should be, (Psalms 137:8,9 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ps+137:8,9>) and in way of retaliation for what they did to the Jews, (2 Chronicles 36:17 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=2ch+36:17>) and this was to be done "before their eyes", in the sight of the inhabitants, which must make it the more distressing and afflicting; and, as Kimchi observes, this phrase is to be applied to the following clauses:

 

their houses shall be spoiled;

plundered of the substance, wealth, and riches in them, by the Persian soldiers:

and their wives ravished;

by the same, and both before their eyes, and after that slain, in like manner as they had

 

ravished the women in Zion, (Lamentations 5:11 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=la+5:11>) ..

 

[Their] bows also shall dash their young men to pieces,

&c.] That is, the bows of the Medes should dash in pieces the young men of the Babylonians. The meaning is, either that they should put them into their bows, instead of arrows, and shoot them upon the ground, or against a wall, and so dash them to pieces; or that they should first shoot them through with their arrows, and then dash them with their bows; according to Xenophon F12 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=018>, Cyrus came to Babylon with great numbers of archers and slingers:

 

and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb;

even of those that were in the womb, but should rip up women with child, and cut

them in pieces: their eyes shall not spare children;

in the arms of their parents, or running to them, shrieking and crying, and in the utmost fright; and yet their tender and innocent age would meet with no mercy. The Medes were notorious for their cruelty F13 <http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=018>, and which issued at last in the ruin of their empire.

 

I would like to see Quenn reply to this verse and this Christian commentary which is a very popular and known commentary. Note the verses not only order the killing of women and children, but the raping of women as well! I shall wait in anticipation for Quennal Gale to respond to this verse, and I shall wait in great anticipation for Quennal Gale to bring me something like this from the Quran, or the Hadiths, something Quenn knows he won’t be able to do.

 

Response:

 

This response should be very easy. First off, there is nowhere in the text in which God is literally commanding anyone to go and kill women and children, this is a prophecy against Mystical Babylon the Harlot of Revelation which Mr. Gill clearly mentions in his expository. If Zaatari actually took the time and reviewed this passage, before inserting it into his article, he could have seen this from the very first verse:

 

Isaiah 13:1

The burden of Babylon…
That is, a prophecy concerning Babylon, as the word is rendered, (Proverbs 31:1) . The Septuagint and Arabic versions translate it "the vision"; it signifies a taking up ^F23 a speech against it, and pronouncing a heavy sentence on it, such an one as should sink it into utter destruction; WHICH WILL BE THE CASE OF MYSTICAL BABYLON, when it shall be as a millstone cast into the sea, never to be brought up again, (Revelation 18:21) . The Targum is,

 

``the burden of the cup of cursing to give Babylon to drink:''

 

after some prophecies concerning the Messiah and his kingdom, and the church's song of praise for salvation by him, others are delivered out concerning the enemies of the people of God, and their destruction, and begin with Babylon THE CHIEF OF THESE ENEMIES, and into whose hands the people of Israel would be delivered for a while; wherefore this prophecy is given forth, in order to lay a foundation for comfort and relief, when that should be their case; by which it would appear that they should have deliverance from them by the same hand that should overthrow them: which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see:

by a spirit of prophecy; for this he saw not with his bodily eyes, though it was as clear and certain to him as if he had. The Targum is,

``which Isaiah the son of Amoz prophesied.''  (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=001)      

 

 

This passage was to occur after the “church’s song of praise” for the Messiah. This didn’t occur until the book of revelation which is still future. Because of Zaatari’s haste to find whatever he could to promote the theory of “violence against children and women in the Bible” Zaatari apparently didn’t read the very first verse and its commentary on this passage! It is glaringly obvious Zaatari didn’t know the context of this passage had nothing to do with a physical war but a spiritual war during the end times, in relation to Mystical Babylon!! What more can I say for this guy other than ignorance seems to be bliss with his Biblical exegesis! Look at the Biblical passage of Mystical Babylon in which Gill referred us to:

 

Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.' " Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again. The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray. In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth." Rev. 18:20-24

 

Obvious the violent battle mentioned in Isaiah 13, is directed at the kingdom of Satan, Mystical Babylon as Mr. Gill correctly stated. Here, we present more evidence from Gill to illustrate this point:

 

for God hath avenged you on her;
or "judged your judgment on her"; that is, has executed righteous judgment on her, FOR ALL THE EVILS DONE BY HER TO THE SAINTS IN AGES PAST, the predecessors of the persons here mentioned, as well as to themselves: vengeance belongs to the Lord, and he will avenge his elect sooner or later. (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=018&verse=020)  Gill on 18:20]

 

There is no way possible for this to refer to a human nation because the evils of Mystical Babylon were committed “in ages past” up until the Day of Judgment! Since Zaatari is so overly concerned with little children in Isaiah 13, who actually are the children of Mystical Babylon, we need to show him this:

 

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. Isaiah 13:15-18

 

We need to show him who exactly the inhabitants of Babylon are:

 

After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. With a mighty voice he shouted: "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become A HOME FOR DEMONS and a haunt for EVERY EVIL^[a] SPIRIT, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries." Rev. 18:1-3

 

Hence, the little children and helpless babies are demons and every evil spirit in Satan’s kingdom! Wouldn’t we want God to be merciless on demons and evil spirits? Yes. Apparently Zaatari doesn’t. But then again when you follow a prophet possessed by a devil what should we expect. To finish Zaatari off on this passage, we quote what Gill has to say:

 

Isaiah 13:9

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh…
Or "is come" ^F5; said in (Isaiah 13:6) to be at hand, but now it is represented in prophecy as already come: cruel both with wrath and fierce anger;

which, whether referred to "the Lord", or to "the day", the sense is the same; the day may be said to be cruel, and full of wrath and fury, because of the severity and fierceness of the Lord's anger, exercised upon the Babylonians in it; and he may be said to be so, NOT THAT HE REALLY IS CRUEL, OR EXCEEDS THE BOUNDS OF JUSTICE, BUT BECAUSE HE SEEMED TO BE SO TO THE OBJECTS OF HIS DISPLEASURE; as a judge may be thought to be cruel and severe by the malefactor, when he only pronounces and executes a righteous judgment on him; a heap of words are here made use of, to express the greatness and fierceness of divine wrath: to lay the land desolate;
the land of the Chaldeans: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it;

this shows that what is before said most properly belongs to the Lord, to whom the destruction of Babylon, and the country belonging to it, must be ascribed; and indeed it was such as COULD NOT BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY HUMAN FORCE; the moving cause of which was the sin of the inhabitants, some of whom were notorious sinners, for whose sakes it was destroyed by the Lord, and they in the midst of it, or out of it; see (Psalms 104:35). (http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=isa&chapter=013&verse=009)      

 

According to Gill, God’s punishment here isn’t cruel but just and it only seems that way to people who are guilty and worthy of the judgment! Also we find that this action of war can’t be done by any human force, which totally destroys Zaatari’s pathetic argument. By attempting to use Gill to paint the picture excessive Biblical violence, Zaatari basically has shown us that the children he is in favour of are devils and that his very own source contradicts and destroys his entire argument!!!

 

Mr. Zaatari responded by saying:

 

My Response

The reason this was done was because the tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So THEY WERE RIGHTFULLY PUNISHED, also even this episode doesn’t compare with the Bible. Unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad spared the women and kids, whereas the Bible just killed the women and the children.

Also boys who had passed puberty back then were considered as men, so those boys who had passed puberty WERE TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS since their tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So hence Quenn has nothing again. The people who were killed were not innocent, so hence there is no crime. - <http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm> (Emphasis ours)

 

If you break down Zaatari’s response he is clearly saying that:

 

1. It is okay for Muhammad to behead young boys because they broke the treaty with the Muslims.

 

2. This was rightful punishment to be beheaded because of the broken treaty with the Muslims.

 

3. Any boy who passed puberty was considered an enemy combatant because of the broken treaty with the Muslims.

 

4. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

 

I am amused that Quenn has to lie against me, because he very well knows that I made it clear that those men who were killed were NOT BOYS, but since Quennal Gale is a liar by nature he has to take me out of context.

Let me break it down for Quennal Gale so he understands what I did say:

 

1- The execution of the men of the Banu Qurayza tribe was legit and not a crime

 

2- It was not a crime because Banu Qurayza conspired to kill and wipe the Muslim ummah off the map

 

3- The Banu Qurayza tribe were under a treaty with the Muslims and it was agreed upon by BOTH parties that anyone who broke the treaty would be punished by death. (Consult Ibn Kathirs sirat, and Tabaris, and Ibn Ishaqs)

 

4- Only the men of the Banu Qurayza tribe were killed, not the women and children, they were spared

 

5- The judgement passed on the Banu Qurayza tribe was ordered by Sa'd a former ally of the Qurayza tribe

 

6- The Banu Qurayza tribe had specifically called for Sa'd to order judgement on them agreeing to obey any judgement he passed on them

 

So hopefully this will make things easy for Quenn.

 

Response:

 

I find it highly laughable for Zaatari to speak of people “taking him out of context”, Isaiah 13 should clearly represent the ultimate misunderstanding of Biblical exegesis by a Muslim propagandist. Zaatari wants to make excuses for Muhammad’s actions against the Jewish tribe the Banu Qurayza what he fails to tell you is that this tribe lived peacefully in Medina before the arrival of Muslim refugees in 622 A.D. Hence, it was the Muslims who later came and stirred up trouble. This source illustrates:

 

IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper. (From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, (1976), pp. 100-107. Source)

 

 

If you read the Islamic texts you will see just why the Jewish tribe would break their treaty and become hostile with Muhammad. From the Quran we find that:

 

The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain TO INCREASE THE CONTUMACY AND DISBELIEF OF MANY OF THEM, AND WE HAVE CAST AMONG THEM ENMITY AND HATRED till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and ALLAH LOVETH NOT CORRUPTERS. S. 5:64

 

First of all this is a very strong accusation against the Jewish people. Think about it for a minute, why would a god-fearing Jew proclaim that God's hands were tied up? They wouldn't! This is a deliberate and slanderous accusation spoken by Allah and the Quran to legitimize their hatred against the Jewish people. The passage clearly states that Allah will increase disbelief, enmity and hatred among them along with not even loving them because they are allegedly land corrupters!!! This verse represents the epitome of Muslim hate for Jews and Judaism!! Why would a loving God hate his own people? Why cause hatred and evil instead of promoting understanding and peace? Now you know what the Islamic world despises Israel. The Jewish tribe was well aware of Muhammad’s teachings and with hateful words such as this, can you wonder why they would break their treaty! What’s even more is that Jews and Christians are to be subjected under Muslims:

 

O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise. FIGHT AGAINST SUCH OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE SCRIPTURE as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden BY HIS MESSENGER, and follow not THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, UNTIL THEY PAY THE TRIBUTE (Jizya tax) READILY, BEING BROUGHT LOW. S. 9:28-29

 

An idolater is anyone who worships any other person other than Allah alone. Since Jews were accused of worshipping Ezra they also fail under this category. This fact is verified throughout Islam. Notice that Muhammad was commanded to fight against them and force them to pay the JIZYA tax.

 

... capitation-tax is a sort of punishment inflicted upon infidels for their obstinacy in infidelity, (as was before stated;) whence it is that it cannot be accepted of the infidel if he send it by the hands of a messenger, but must be exacted in a mortifying and humiliating manner, by the collector sitting and receiving it from him in a standing posture : (according to one tradition, the collector is to SEIZE HIM BY THE THROAT, and shake him, saying, "Pay your tax, Zimmee!) - It is therefore evident that capitation-tax is a punishment; and where two punishments come together, they are compounded, in the same manner as in Hidd, or stated punishment. Secondly, capitation-tax is a substitute for destruction in respect to the infidels, and a substitute for personal aid in respect to the Muslims, (as was before observed;) - but it is a substitute for destruction with regard to the future, not with regard to the past, because infidels are liable to be put to death only in future, in consequence of future war, and not in the past. In the same manner, it is also a substitute and in the past... (AL-HEDAYA Vol. II [Hanafi Manual])

 

AL-HEDAYA Vol. II (Hanafi Manual) [Arrear of capitation-tax is remitted, upon the subject's decease, or conversion to the faith] IF A PERSON BECOME A MUSLIM, who is indebted for any arrear of capitation-tax, such arrear is remitted : and in the same manner, the arrear of capitation-tax due from a Zimmee IS REMITTED UPON HIS DYING IN A STATE OF INFIDELITY...capitation-tax is a species of punishment inflicted upon infidels on account of their infidelity, whence it is termed Jizyat, which is derived from Jizya, meaning retribution; now the temporal punishment of infidelity is remitted in consequence of conversion to the faith; and after death it cannot be inflicted, because temporal punishments are instituted solely for the purpose of removing evil, which is removed by either death or Islam. Thirdly, capitation-tax is a substitute for aid to the Muslims, and as the infidel in question, upon embracing the faith, becomes enabled to aid them in his own person, capitation- tax consequently drops upon his Islam. -

 

As for Sa’d’s judgment against the Banu Quraish:

 

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Sa'id al-Khudri who said: The people of Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Sa'd b. Mu'adh about them. Accordingly, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent for Sa'd who came to him riding a donkey. When he approached the mosque, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said to the Ansar: Stand up to receive your chieftain. Then he said (to Sa'd): These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He (Sa'd) said: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. (Hearing this), the Prophet (may peace he upon him) said: YOU HAVE ADJUDGED BY THE COMMAND OF GOD. The narrator is reported to have said: Perhaps he said: You have adjuged by the decision of a king.

 

Ibn Muthanna (in his version of the tradition) has not mentioned the alternative words. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4368)

 

According to Muhammad's very own statement, God's command here was to kill these fighters and take their children and women captive. Many of these men fought because they knew if Muhammad had absolute power he would force them into dhimmi status!! These Jews viewed Muhammad as an imposter and a false prophet which is why they fought against him. Zaatari was correct, he has made it easier for us on this issue in more ways then one.

 

treaty is defined as:

 

TREATY

 

1 : the action of treating <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treating> and especially of negotiating

2 a : an agreement or arrangement made by negotiation: (1) : PRIVATE TREATY <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/private+treaty> (2) : a contract in writing between two or more political authorities (as states or sovereigns) formally signed by representatives duly authorized and usually ratified by the lawmaking authority of the state b : a document in which such a contract is set down (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

 

A treaty is defined as the negotiation or result of a negation between two parties with agreements to hold to certain terms and conditions. In the case of Muhammad, it was a treaty among various tribes. To break a treaty basically means to annul the previous agreements among the binding parties. Hence, Mr. Zaatari has clearly stated that Muslims can attack others just for breaking the treaty and that the punishment they incur is therefore justified.

In the case of the Banu Qurayzah:

 

1. All young boys would be beheaded

 

2. Some women who fought would also be beheaded

 

3. Because the treaty was broken all who passed puberty were considered enemy combatants.

With Zaatari’s criteria being laid out, we can conclude that:

It is okay to kill enemy combatants who break a treaty, since violating such an agreement results in their just and fair punishment. (Source <http://www.answer-islam.org/violent_bible.html>)

 

Quenn again has to lie and distort the information he has, the treaty the Muslims made with the Jews in Madinah was that ANYONE WHO BROKE IT including Muslims would be punished, and punished by death, all parties agreed to it, so by Banu Qurayza breaking this treaty they had open themselves up for attack.

 

Secondly no boys were killed, they were young men, under God's eyes boys who go through puberty or are going through puberty are considered as young men and not boys, something many Christians and Jews also agree

on.

 

However so, Muslims are not allowed to kill women and children, innocent women that is, unlike the Bible were everyone is killed including innocent pregnant women, and innocent helpless babies, they are all put to the sword.

 

Response:

 

What I just can’t seem to understand is how Zaatari can claim that:

 

Secondly no boys were killed, they were young men, under God's eyes boys who go through puberty or are going through puberty are considered as young men and not boys, something many Christians and Jews also agree on.

 

If this is the case then:

 

Where exactly does the God of the Quran say that “boys who go through or going through puberty” are considered men not boys?

 

 

Zaatari is attempting to rely on “the God factor” with this response but he hasn’t provided us with any Quranic quote of Allah actually saying this. This is an assumption that is unsubstantiated so far. If a person is to argue that God views something a particular way then the proof is on them to back this up with quotes from God the matter. So far Zaatari has presented nothing. He has “beg the question” and then proceeded to argue something which has no solid basis whatsoever. Claiming that God views something a particular way is one thing but actually proving it is another.

 

Mr. Zaatari obviously has a dilemma because in trying to defend the beheading of the “young boys” of the Banu Qurayzah he claimed that if they passed puberty “they were considered enemy combatants” and deserved to be beheaded! Notice that Zaatari hasn’t presented corroborating data from Islamic history to show that the entire tribe fought against the Muslims and has therefore not proven that “all of these enemy combatants” actually fought Muhammad. Hence, we can conclude that boys who were considered “enemy combatants” who necessarily didn’t fight in a war WERE BEHEADED just because they fit in this group.

 

The punishment executed against the tribe was passed by Sa'd a man who the tribe placed as the judge to pass judgement on them, if Quenn feels this is bad or wrong, then he should go complain against the Banu Qurayza for appointing Sa'd as the judge for them. Secondly, Quenn should also go complain to Qurayza for breaking the treaty in the first place which put them in all this trouble.

 

And no Quenn, I am not in a dilemma, it is you who is in a dilemma, and you are in a very bad dilemma, your Bible allows the slaughtering of women and children, which we all know is heinous and disgusting, however so you are obliged to follow it hence you are in a dilemma, do you follow such sick sadistic barbarity, or do you throw this book away. It is your choice, but maybe this shall help you make that choice:

 

Response:

 

Sparing no chance to proceed with his attack on the Biblical text, Ms. Zaatari wastes no time presenting us with another laughable exegesis on Ezekiel 9 with commentary from Matthew Henry. What is further embarrassing is that his commentary is going to expose just how wrong his conclusion actually is:

 

Ezekiel 9:5-7

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

 

Using the same commentary he uses we find that:

 

 

Matthew Henry commentary:

 

I. A command given to the destroyers to do execution according to their commission. They stood by the brazen altar, waiting for orders; and orders are here given them to cut off and destroy all that were either guilty of, or accessory to, the abominations of Jerusalem, and that did not sigh and cry for them. Note, When God has gathered his wheat into his garner nothing remains but to burn up the chaff, Matthew 3:12 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+3:12&t=kjv>.

 

1. They are ordered to destroy all, (1.) Without exception. They must go through the city, and smite; they must slay utterly, slay to destruction, give them their death's wound. They must make no distinction of age or sex, but cut off old and young; neither the beauty of the virgins, nor the innocency of the babes, shall secure them. This was fulfilled in the death of multitudes BY FAMINE AND PESTILENCE, especially by THE SWORD OF THE CHALDEANS, as far as the military execution went. Sometimes even such bloody work as this has been God's work. But what an evil thing is sin, then, which provokes the God of infinite mercy to such severity! (2.) Without compassion: "Let not your eye spare, neither have you pity (Ezekiel 9:5 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:5&t=kjv>); you must not save any whom God has doomed to destruction, as Saul did Agag and the Amalekites, for that is doing the work of God deceitfully, Jeremiah 48:10 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+48:10&t=kjv>. None need to be more merciful than God is; and he had said (Ezekiel 8:18 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+8:18&t=kjv>), My eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity." Note, Those that live in sin, and hate to be reformed, will perish in sin, and deserve not to be pitied; for they might easily have prevented the ruin, and would not.

 

 

As we closely look at Matthew Henry’s commentary we find that the command, we are “obliged to follow” in Zaatarian language, were actually carried out by famine and disease! This is interesting because if we are “obliged to follow” this command then Christians must somehow change themselves to become hunger and pestilence if we take the text literally like Zaatari wants us to do! What’s even worse is that WE MUST GO BACK IN TIME AND BECOME THE CHALDEANS, whom in this passage, fulfilled the actions, as far as military execution in 580 BC! Zaatari barks:

 

your Bible allows the slaughtering of women and children, which we all know is heinous and disgusting, however so you are obliged to follow it hence you are in a dilemma, do you follow such sick sadistic barbarity, or do you throw this book away

 

Zaatari thinks that the Bible allows for the slaughter of women and children in this passage because he hasn’t read the very commentary he uses in support of his thesis!! I’m sure he would love if us Christians took every word of the Quran literally. For more on metaphorical usages on the Quran see the link below:

 

http://www.harunyahya.com/generalknowledge11.php

 

There would is no way possible to follow this behaviour since Mr. Henry already described how it occurred in the first place! In his haste to find something bad in the bible Zaatari failed to read the very sources he attempts to explain to the reader. It took all of two seconds to refute this argument here. Even if we assume that Zaatari is right here, and we must follow this example, careful reading of this passage shows us that the people were very evil and violent:

 

Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, "Bring the guards of the city here, each with a weapon in his hand." And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar. Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it." As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple. Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?" He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done." THEM THE MAN IN LINEN WITH THE WRITING KIT at his side brought back word, saying, "I have done as you commanded."  Ezekiel. 9:1-11

 

Looking at this passage in its entirety there is no way we are commanded to follow this action because God gives the specific command to “the man with the writing kit and the men who are beside him” to carry out these actions, not the followers of God as a whole! Is Zaatari now telling us that one single man can be considered the entire Christian population now? Also Sarah Zaatari failed to show his reader that before anybody was killed, God allowed those who grieved or didn’t agree with all of the evil occurring in Jerusalem to be marked and saved from destruction. Hence, anyone killed was guilty of sin and injustice this would include the women and children who COMMITTED SIN AND INJUSTICE! If they didn’t commit evil THEY WERE MARKED AND WERE SPARED. This is why the passage said:

 

do not touch anyone who has the mark

 

What further disproves Zaatari’s foolish conclusion that Christians were commanded to follow or imitate this action can be seen from Gill’s commentary, a favourite of his on this passage:

 

Ezekiel 9:2

And, behold, six men…
Either angels the form of men; or the generals of Nebuchadnezzar's army, as Kimchi interprets it; whose names are, Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, (Jeremiah 39:3) ; these six executioners of God's vengeance are, in the Talmud ^F14, called

``wrath, anger, fury, destruction, breach, and consumption:''  (http://studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=eze&chapter=009&verse=002)  

 

The six men God used to carry out his judgment weren’t Christians but either angels or generals in Nebuchadnezzar’s army. Zaatari conveniently left out this information because he’s trying to lie and say that Christians as a whole should follow this biblical passage when it was given to only six generals or angels! Unlike Muhammad, the God of the Bible gave people a chance to repent by marking them while Muhammad just went ahead and beheaded everybody! Zaatari’s own source proves what we just said below:

 

2. They are warned not to do the least hurt to those that were marked for salvation: "Come not near any man upon whom is the mark; do not so much as threaten or frighten any of them; it is promised them that there shall no evil come nigh them, and therefore you must keep at a distance from them." The king of Babylon gave particular orders that Jeremiah should be protected. Baruch and Ebed-melech were secured, and, it is likely, others of Jeremiah's friends, for his sake. God had promised that it should go well with his remnant and they should be well treated (Jeremiah 15:11 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+15:11&t=kjv>); and we have reason to think that none of the mourning praying remnant fell by the sword of the Chaldeans, but that God found out some way or other to secure them all, as, in the last destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the Christians were all secured in a city called Pella, and none of them perished with the unbelieving Jews. Note, None of those shall be lost whom God has marked for life and salvation; for the foundation of God stands sure.

 

Zaatari’s own source refutes the fact that we are to follow this command. Matthew Henry’s commentary shows the context and relationship this passage refers to the conquest of Jerusalem, Jeremiah and other prophets supernaturally protected when the city felled to both the Babylonians and the Romans. God specifically mentions that only the evil people were killed and not the righteous. Even Muhammad wouldn’t have a problem with this! Since Zaatari complains about me scrutinizing how the Banu Quraysh broke the treaty with Muhammad and were worthy of death, HOW MUCH MORE WOULD SINNING AGAINST GOD AND BREAKING THE TREATY OF HOLINESS RENDER A PERSON WORTHY OF DEATH! This concept is found in both Christianity and Islam. Matthew Henry continues:

 

3. They are directed to begin at the sanctuary (Ezekiel 9:6 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:6&t=kjv>), that sanctuary which, in the chapter before, he had seen the horrid profanation of; they must begin there because there the wickedness began which provoked God to send these judgments. The debaucheries of the priests were the poisoning of the springs, to which all the corruption of the streams was owing. The wickedness of the sanctuary was of all wickedness the most offensive to God, and therefore there the slaughter must begin: "Begin there, to try if the people will take warning by the judgments of God upon their priests, and will repent and reform; begin there, that all the world may see and know that the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God, and hates sin most in those that are nearest to him." Note, When judgments are abroad they commonly begin at the house of God, 1 Peter 4:17 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1pe+4:17&t=kjv>. You only have I known, and therefore I will punish you, Amos 3:2 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=am+3:2&t=kjv>. God's temple is a sanctuary, a refuge and protection for penitent sinners, but not for any that go on still in their trespasses; neither the sacredness of the place nor the eminency of their place in it will be their security. It should seem the destroyers made some difficulty of putting men to death in the temple, but God bids them not to hesitate at that, but (Ezekiel 9:7 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:7&t=kjv>), Defile the house, and fill the courts with slain. They will not be taken from the altar (as was appointed by the law, Exodus 21:14 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ex+21:14&t=kjv>), but think to secure themselves by keeping hold of the horns of it, like Joab, and therefore, like him, let them die there, 1 Kings 2:30,31 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=1ki+2:30,31&t=kjv>. There the blood of one of God's prophets had been shed (Matthew 23:35 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=mt+23:35&t=kjv>) and therefore let their blood be shed. Note, If the servants of God's house defile it with their idolatries, God will justly suffer the enemies of it to defile it with their violences, Psalms 79:1 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ps+79:1&t=kjv>. But these acts of necessary justice were really, whatever they were ceremonially, rather a purification than a pollution of the sanctuary; it was putting away evil from among them. 4. They are appointed to go forth into the city, Ezekiel 9:6,7 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+9:6,7&t=kjv>. Note, Wherever sin has gone before judgement will follow after; and, though judgement begins at the house of God, yet it shall not end there. The holy city shall be no more a protection to the wicked people then the holy house was to the wicked priests.

 

Here we see the judgment of God is justified for the wicked, which broke God’s law and commandments. If Zaatari can make excuses for a tribal treaty being broken how can he come back and demand justification for wickedness brought against God? Such stupidity is beyond comprehension!! Zaatari is basically saying that if you break a treaty with God’s prophet you are worthy of death but if you sin against God you aren’t worthy of death and if God proceeds to bring death on the wicked, he is wrong and sick! This proves to me that Muslims like Zaatari tend to worship Muhammad more than God himself! Offend the prophet and you die, offend God and live! Matthew Henry gives us the reason why the people killed were done so:

 

II. Here is execution done accordingly. They observed their orders, and, 1. They began at the elders, the ancient men that were before the house, and slew them first, either those seventy ancients who worshipped idols in their chambers (Ezekiel 8:12 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=eze+8:12&t=kjv>) or those twenty-five who worshipped the sun between the porch and the altar, who might more properly be said to be before the house. Note, Ringleaders in sin may expect to be first met with by the judgments of God; and the sins of those who are in the most eminent and public stations call for the most exemplary punishments. 2. They proceeded to the common people: They went forth and slew in the city; for, when the decree has gone forth, there shall be no delay; if God begin, he will make an end.

 

What is even more problematic for Zaatari is that the last verses of this passage actually would agree with one of the basic teachings of Islam. Again we read:

 

He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads WHAT THEY HAVE DONE." Then the man in linen with the writing kit at his side brought back word, saying, "I have done as you commanded."  Ezekiel. 9:9-11

 

Notice that God says his judgment is “bringing down on their own heads what they have done” which is basically punishing the wicked for the sins they committed against other people. This agrees with the justice of both the OT and the Quran:

 

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. Exodus 21:23-25

 

Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution - life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. Leviticus 24:18-21

 

Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Deuteronomy 19:21

 

Compare to the Quran:

 

And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers. S. 5:45

 

As you can clearly see, God’s punishment was perfectly in line with the judgment of “eye for an eye”, “tooth for a tooth”. Hence, his punishment in Ezekiel 9 was the same given to the wicked for the very merciless acts they caused against one another. This is why God said:

 

I will bring down on their own heads what they have done

 

God paid them back the same way they did others, hence the wicked in this passage weren’t innocent as Zaatari would have us to believe. What is even more binding is that the Quran claims that if one doesn’t judge base on this revealed word he/she is a wrong doer!! For God to not punish these people would be the very same thing to make God a wrong doer! As we’ve shown in this passage, the innocent people who did no wrong weren’t killed but only the wicked after they were given time to repent. This passage explicitly states that only the wicked, which weren’t marked by the angel, were killed. The Bible doesn’t allow for the slaughter of women and children in this passage it allows only for 6 men or angels to execute divine justice on evil people whose punishment fit exactly with both the Quranic and Biblical principle of “eye for an eye or tooth for a tooth”. Zaatari continues with Jeremiah 51:

 

Jeremiah 51:20-26

 

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.

 

Adam Clarke commentary:

 

Verse 20. Thou art my battle axe
I believe Nebuchadnezzar is meant, who is called, Jeremiah 50:23 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+50:23>, the hammer of the whole earth. Others think the words are spoken of Cyrus. All the verbs are in the past tense: "With thee have I broken in pieces,"

 

Verse 24. And I will render
The vau should be translated but, of which it has here the full power: "But I will render unto Babylon."

 

Verse 25. O destroying mountain
An epithet which he applies to the Babylonish government; it is like a burning mountain, which, by vomiting continual streams of burning lava, inundates and destroys all towns, villages fields,

 

And roll thee down from the rocks
I will tumble thee from the rocky base on which thou restest. The combustible matter in thy bowels being exhausted, thou shalt appear as an extinguished crater; and the stony matter which thou castest out shall not be of sufficient substance to make a foundation stone for solidity, or a corner stone for beauty, Jeremiah 51:26 <http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=jer+51:26>. Under this beautiful and most expressive metaphor, the prophet shows the nature of the Babylonish government; setting the nations on fire, deluging and destroying them by its troops, till at last, exhausted, it tumbles down, is extinguished, and leaves nothing as a basis to erect a new form of government on; but is altogether useless, like the cooled lava, which is, properly speaking, fit for no human purpose.

 

What more can I say to such barbarity?

 

Response:

 

If this is the very best that Zaatari could actually do then I am thoroughly disappointed. Zaatari looks at this passage with the belief that it encourages us to go and kill. Well there are several problems to this theory as Adam Clarke illustrates here:

 

Sequel of the prophecies of Jeremiah against Babylon. The dreadful, sudden, AND FINAL RUIN THAT SHALL FALL UPON THE CHALDEANS, who have compelled the nations to receive their idolatrous rites, (see an instance in the third chapter of Daniel,) set forth by a variety of beautiful figures; with a command to the people of God, (who have made continual intercession for the conversion of their heathen rulers,) to flee from the impending vengeance, 1-14. Jehovah, Israel's God, whose infinite power, wisdom and understanding are every where visible in the works of creation, elegantly contrasted with the utterly contemptible objects of the Chaldean worship, 15-19. Because of their great oppression of God's people, the Babylonians shall be visited with cruel enemies from the north, whose innumerable hosts shall fill the land, and utterly extirpate the original inhabitants, 20-44. One of the figures by which this formidable invasion is represented is awfully sublime. "The SEA is come up upon Babylon; she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof." And the account of the sudden desolation produced by this great armament of a multitude of nations, (which the prophet, dropping the figure, immediately subjoins,) is deeply afflictive. "Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness; a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby." The people of God a third time admonished to escape from Babylon, lest they be overtaken with her plagues, 45,46. Other figures setting forth in a variety of lights the awful judgments with which the Chaldeans shall be visited on account of their very gross idolatries, 47-58. The significant emblem with which the chapter concludes, of Seraiah, after having read the book of the Prophet Jeremiah against Babylon, binding a stone to it, and casting it into the river Euphrates, thereby prefiguring the very sudden downfall of the Chaldean city and empire, 59-64, is beautifully improved by the writer of the Apocalypse, Revelation 18:21, in speaking of Babylon the GREAT, of which the other was a most expressive type; and to which many of the passages interspersed THROUGHOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES RELATIVE TO BABYLON MUST BE ULTIMATELY REFERRED, if we would give an interpretation in every respect equal to the terrible import of the language in which these prophecies are conceived. Notes on Chapter 51 (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=jer&chapter=051) 

 

As in the case of Isaiah 13, Zaatari is taking a prophetic passage which refers to Mystery Babylon of Revelation (Satan’s kingdom) and applied it literally to actions that never occurred in the Old Testament! Again the old women, children and men in Mystery Babylon were the demons and evil spirits!

 

After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. With a mighty voice he shouted: "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become A HOME FOR DEMONS and a haunt for EVERY EVIL^[a] SPIRIT, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her,  and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries." Rev. 18:1-3

 

Mr. Clarke correctly tells us that any reference to Babylon of this nature must ultimately be referred to Mystery Babylon in Revelations. I’m sorry but there is nothing barbaric in destroying demons and the forces of evil. More evidence against Zaatari trying to refer this to actual fighting in the OT is based on history of the Middle East. Babylon never fell in this type of battle, it generally crumbled over centuries and later inhabitants moved to Baghdad and other Mesopotamian cities. The only reference to such a war being carried out against Babylon in this instance is still future and it refers to the kingdom of Satan which is the habitat of demons and devils!

 

To show you how this is further substantiated we turn to Zaatari’s very own comments further down in this article in reference to Surah 17:

 

Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is invent this lie on his own!

 

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

 

Notice that according to Zaatari’s very own words:

 

It must be mentioned that women and children are killed and that if it isn’t mention Zaatari assumes that it didn’t happen.

 

So using this logic we must ask Zaatari this:

 

1. Where exactly did the Hadith’s or Islamic history OR THE QURAN (since you only believe things found in it) mention that the “young boys” fought against Muhammad and that “they were considered enemy combatants”?

 

Thank you Quenn, thank you very much for your challenge to me asking me where the Quran or hadith state that all the young men fought against the prophet. I do not need to show it, because I just showed that the Jews had asked Sa'd to pass judgement on them, so therefore they were punished accordingly, so as I said and will say again, go complain to the Qurayza tribe about why they asked Sa'd to pass judgement on them since we will never know what the prophet would have done to them.

 

 

Wow, it took long enough didn’t it! However, Zaatari has still failed, HE ONLY SHOWED THAT SA’D PASSED JUDGMENT ON THE BANU QURAYZA BUT HE NEVER SHOWED WHERE ALL THE YOUNG BOYS FOUGHT AGAINST MUHAMMAD AND WERE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS!

 

I always stressed that there were innocent people killed in this battle, Zaatari claims that there weren’t. I then challenged Zaatari to show me that the young boys who reached puberty fought against Muhammad, he couldn’t do this. Even if Sa’d passed judgment on this tribe, how does this help us determine who did or didn’t fight against Muhammad? It doesn’t! That’s why I said in my quote:

 

1. Where exactly did the Hadith’s or Islamic history OR THE QURAN (since you only believe things found in it) mention that the “young boys” fought against Muhammad and that “they were considered enemy combatants”?

 

Zaatari has only shown that because of the puberty level of the boys in question, they deserved to be beheaded since they were considered men in Allah’s eyes (even though he hasn’t presented one shred of information of his god to prove this!) but he has not shown that ALL THE YOUNG BOYS OF THIS TRIBE ACTUALLY FOUGHT MUHAMMAD!  I will even present Zaatari’s own quote, in his defense, against him:

 

…«?????? ???????? ???????? ????????»(You have judged according to the ruling of the Sovereign.) Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized. All of this is stated both briefly and in detail, with evidence and Hadiths, in the book of Sirah which we have written, praise and blessings be to Allah. Allah said:

 

[????????? ????????? ???????????](And those who backed them, Allah brought them down) means, those who helped and supported them in their war against the Messenger of Allah .

 

[????? ?????? ??????????](of the People of the Scripture) means, Banu Qurayzah, who were Jews from one of the tribes of Israel. Their forefathers had settled in the Hijaz long ago, seeking to follow the Unlettered Prophet of whom they read in the Tawrah and Injil.

 

[???????? ???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ????](then when there came to them that which they had recognized, they disbelieved in it) (2:89). May the curse of Allah be upon them.

 

[??? ????????????](from their forts) means, from their strongholds. This was the view of Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Qatadah, As-Suddi and others of the Salaf.

 

[???????? ??? ??????????? ?????????](and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. They wanted to eradicate the Muslims but they were themselves eradicated. In addition to all this, they are doomed in the Hereafter, so by all acounts they are counted as losers. Allah says:

 

[???????? ??????????? ????????????? ????????](a group you killed, and a group you made captives.) Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women. Imam Ahmad recorded that `Atiyah Al-Qurazi said, "I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.'' This was also recorded by the Sunan compilers, and At-Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Sahih.'' An-Nasa'i also recorded something similar from `Atiyah…

 

When we look at his quote closely we find that:

 

1. Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded.
2. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner
3. Those who were killed were their warriors, and the prisoners were their children and women.

 

If the warriors were killed and the children who didn’t reach puberty were spared, what we can clearly see is there were children who reached puberty but didn’t participate in the battle, who were killed! Notice what Al-Qurazi said:

 

"I was shown to the Prophet on the day of Qurayzah, because they were not sure about me. The Prophet told them to look at me to see whether I had grown any body hair yet. They looked and saw that I had not grown any body hair, so they let me go and I was put with the other prisoners.''

 

Notice how there was no mention that he participated in this battle; in fact Muhammad and the Muslims were unsure of whether he reached puberty at first! If Muhammad only killed warriors who participated in the battle it would be pretty obvious who to kill. This proves what I was saying all along, if there were innocent boys who were going into puberty, they would’ve been killed whether they fought or not! The tradition clearly says that Muhammad killed the warriors, which was a separate class from everyone else. However, Muhammad didn’t stop at this he decided to take out every boy who entered puberty whether he fought against the Muslims or not. If Al Qurazi was a warrior, he would’ve escaped death because Muhammad was unsure of him firstly and the only thing that saved him was his lack of puberty!

 

Zaatari has also introduced us to another problem relating to the issue of the Banu Qurayza. If Muhammad went along with Sa’d judgment and allowed boys or men to be killed just because they reached puberty while calling this the judgment of Allah then Muhammad can be seen breaking on of Islam most important war rules:

 

Only Combatants Could Be Killed

In fact, as the Hidayah has put it clearly, a person’s life, unless he is a murderer, cannot be taken on any ground other than that he is a combatant: “And they should not kill a woman, nor a child, nor an aged person, nor one who does not take part in a war, nor a blind man, because what makes it lawful to take a man’s life, according to us, is his being a combatant, and this is not true in their case”⁷. In fact, this conclusion, which is the basic principle of the Hanifite law, is based on the express words of the Holy Prophet himself. As Abu Dawud reports on the authority of Rabah, son of Rabi`:

“We were with the Prophet in a certain battle, and he saw the people gather together in one place. So he sent a man to make an inquiry as to why the people had gathered together. The messenger came back and said, “There is a woman killed.” The Holy Prophet said, She was not Fighting. The reporter says that Khalid was leading at the time. So the Prophet sent a man to Khalid and asked him to tell Khalid that he should not kill a woman nor a hireling”.⁸.

By remarking that “she was not fighting”, the Prophet(P) made it plain that even in battle only such persons could be killed AS ACTUALLY TOOK PART IN FIGHTING, and along with women he excepted hirelings, because they were only hired for other work and did not take part in actual fighting. It is on this basis that the Hanifite law excepts, along with women, children and old men, all such persons as cannot take part in fighting. And the conclusion is inevitable that according to the Prophet’s own injunctions the killing of a person was not lawful unless he took part in fighting, and any report to the effect that a person was killed though he was not a combatant is either untrue or defective, even if it is met with in a reliable collection of traditions. And as for biographies, they cannot be trusted at all in such matters, and the case of Ibn Sunainah’s murder must be rejected as untrue. The statement that this murder was due to the Prophet(P) giving a general order for the slaughter of the Jews is sufficient to discredit this report, for not only would such an order be against the clear injunctions of the Qur’an, but also because if such an order were given it would not have resulted in the murder of a single Jew.

1.               Fath al-Bari, ch. Killing of Abul Huqaiq

2.               The six reliable collections of the Traditions of the Prophet(P)

3.               `Aun al-Ma’bud, Commentary on Abu Dawud, ch. Murder of Women

4.               Fath al-Bari, ch. Ahl al-dar-i yabitun

5.               ch. Du’a al-Mushrikin

6.               Fath al-Qadir, vol. v, p. 202 

7.               ibid., ch. Kaifiyyat al-Qital

8.               ibid., ch. Qatl al-Nisa? (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/false-allegations-of-atrocities-i/)                  

 

Zaatari has proven to us that Muhammad broke his own Islamic rule to kill non-combatants to adhere to the judgment of Sa’d! What’s even worse is that he calls this the commandment of God himself! Hence, we have God breaking his own laws and rules! Look at Zaatari’s comments from his article:

 

It is fun to read this rubbish especially when this missionary thinks he has scored a slam dunk argument. He keeps challenging me to show him where ALL the young men fought against the prophet, and yet again my reply is that  the punishment of killing all the men including the fighters was ordered by Sa'd who the Jews placed as their judge. So Quenn go learn Islamic history please because you show your stupidity and ignorance with these stupid challenges of yours.

 

Since Zaatari agrees that Sa’d ordered the killing of all the men who experienced puberty then he’s back to square one, namely trying to prove that all the young boys actually fought Muhammad because it would be wrong to kill enemy combatants who never fought in a war!

 

 

Secondly, Quenn again has to quote out of context and give a false image against me, let us quote in context to establish what was said:

 

The problem for Zaatari is that Allah does mention how he gave the Children of Israel THE PROMISE LAND. Surah 17 is named “The Children of Israel”!

 

If you read this Quranic passage, Allah himself is saying that he is for the Children of Israel “assaulting” the people of the Promised Land! This would include Sihon, Bashan and all the others the Hebrews fought! These same wars were considered atrocities by Zaatari. According to the God-fearing men, whom the Quran mentions, the way to enter the Holy Land was to fight for it in offensively! Just because the Quran isn’t as detailed as the Bible regarding the wars doesn’t mean IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE QURAN! If Zaatari tries to argue that this didn’t refer to all the Hebrew battles with the specific inhabitants of the Holy Land then by his own words he must show us where this specific information is given in the Quran and the Hadiths!

 

To which I replied:

 

Secondly, Quenn's attempt in trying to show that The Quran confirms this story is even worse. Let us Quote the verses he posted and let us see if it says what he believes it does:

 

Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him. And We said thereafter to the Children of Israel, "Dwell securely in the land (of promise)": but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd. S. 17:102-104

 

The problem for Zaatari is that Allah does mention how he gave the Children of Israel THE PROMISE LAND. Surah 17 is named “The Children of Israel”! Here is more from the Quran:

 

O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our apostles, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. "O my people! ENTER THE HOLY LANDE which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Allah fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "ASSAULT THEM at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." S. 5:21-24

 

Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is invent this lie on his own!

 

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

 

What a nice missionary deception tactic by Quenn, Quenn believes that saying assault them means kill their women and kids! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Christian tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Christian tafsir at its best.

 

So notice this coward was trying to equate the Quranic story with that of his own Bible! Yet the Quranic story says nothing about slaying women and children, the Quran says the land was given to Moses, and that he should assault the inhabitants, but from WHERE DOES QUENN CONCLUDE THAT THIS MEANS THAT HE WAS COMMANDED TO KILL THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

 

Response:

 

Why do I have to be a coward for trying to equate the Quranic story with the Biblical story? What exactly am I afraid of her Ms. Zaatari? To show you whose actually afraid, lets show you this first with Zaatari’s comments:

 

Notice Quennal Gale's stupid logic, a general gives his soldier an order to fight the people of China, this means the general told the soldier to kill all the women and children just because he gave an order to fight China, do people use such stupid logic! There is something called RULES OF WAR, and since Quenn follows the Bible he doesn’t believe in them, but too bad in Islam and the Quran and the hadith we have RULES. The rules are DO NOT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and since Moses was a Muslim according to Islam, this then means he would have not killed women and children.

 

But to refute Quennal Gales assertion that I need a clear explicit reference to believe in something is FALSE, the reason I asked Quenn to show me WHERE WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE killed in those passages it because it does not even suggest it! Here is what it says:

 

O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our apostles, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. "O my people! ENTER THE HOLY LANDE which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Allah fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "ASSAULT THEM at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." S. 5:21-24

 

From where does anyone conclude that these passages say go kill women and children as said in the Bible? What Quenn did is READ INTO THE TEXT, HE HAS CLAIMED SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE NOR SUGGESTED.

 

In my last article I explicitly said that Zaatari would try to fall back on the excuse of “it’s not mentioned in the Quran”. Since he obviously followed this very same approach as predicted we present again:

 

So now that we’ve proven that the story is found in Islam, Zaatari must resort to using an even more laughable excuse, i.e. IT ISN’T MENTIONED IN THE TEXT SPECIFICALLY! Now wasn’t this the same guy who was trying to read “enemy combatants” into the Islamic traditions and “innocent women and children” into the Biblical text EVEN THOUGH NIETHER SOURCE EXPRESSLY STATED THIS? Zaatari’s responses would sound more credible if he didn’t do the very same thing! Also the problem for Zaatari is simply this, since you now know that the story is found in the Quran and Hadith:

 

Since you now know that the story is found in the Quran and Hadith:

 

1.      Where does Muhammad say these actions were wrong?

2.      Where does the Quran say that women and kids weren’t being killed?

 

Muhammad was very familiar with the story of the Torah, which the Hadiths themselves prove:

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah IN HEBREW AND THEY USED TO EXPLAIN IT IN ARABIC TO THE MUSLIMS. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136)  Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12

 

And

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Found also in Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 632 Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460

 

Muhammad obviously knew about the killing of the women and children but said nothing about it being wrong! What more do we need to state in this case proving that Zaatari’s argument of “terrorism” in the Bible is nothing more than the figment of his imagination! His own prophet and false god deemed it unnecessary to say anything specifically against the Bible and these wars. Since Zaatari obviously believes that:

 

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

 

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

 

We can ask him this:

 

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

 

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING THAT IT WAS WRONG TO KILL THE WOMEN AND KIDS IN THESE WARS?

 

If Zaatari tries to appeal to the fact that the Quran doesn’t mention “women and children” being killed then he shouldn’t have a problem with us applying the same method to prove that the Quran doesn’t expressly condemn the Biblical wars!

 

Zaatari is only refuting himself with these types of arguments. He claims that the Quran doesn’t mention anything about the women and children being killed and yet he attacks the Holy Bible even though the Quran nowhere censures the Bible for its wars! We again need to remind him of his comments:

 

It doesn’t mean that I wont believe anything not mentioned in the Quran, what I don’t believe is things that CONTRADICT the Quran found in a supposed holy book which ascribes things to men of God which contradict God's true word.

 

Zaatari clearly says, “It doesn’t mean he won’t believe anything not mentioned in the Quran,” just as long as it doesn’t contradict the Quran! So we must ask him this:

 

1.      Where does the Bible contradict the Quran regarding the nature of the OT Wars?

2.      Where does the Quran condemn these wars as atrocious or inhumane?

 

Remember Zaatari said he wouldn’t believe it IF IT CONTRADICTS HIS HOLY BOOK! Therefore he must show explicitly from the Quran where the Biblical actions in these ancient wars were wrong. Zaatari’s statement isn’t so much a contradiction as it is a total self-destructive stance! (http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html)     

 

Since Zaatari is obviously arguing that “the killing of women and children” isn’t found in the Quran relating to this passage where is the condemnation of the Biblical wars is expressively found? He’s still arguing this self-destructive stance and it takes him back to square one: Where did Muhammad condemn any Biblical war in the Quran? Zaatari claimed:

 

From where does anyone conclude that these passages say go kill women and children as said in the Bible? What Quenn did is READ INTO THE TEXT, HE HAS CLAIMED SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE NOR SUGGESTED.

 

Since I’ve read this into the text, we can turn around and ask Zaatari this same question:

 

From where does anyone conclude that these passages say that the killing of women and children in war, in the Bible is wrong based on explicit statements in the Quran? What Zaatari did is READ INTO THE TEXT, HE HAS CLAIMED SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE NOR SUGGESTED.

 

It is obvious that Zaatari can’t find a single explicit Quranic statement refuting any Biblical war as being wrong. Hence, no matter what he presents in his articles it all stems from his opinion and no facts based on his own religion!

 

In fact let us also consult the tafsir since the tafsir refutes Quennal Gale even further:

 

The Speeches of Yuwsha` (Joshua) and Kalib (Caleb)

Allah said,

 

[????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???????????](Two men of those who feared (Allah and) on whom Allah had bestowed His grace said...) When the Children of Israel declined to obey Allah and follow His Messenger Musa, two righteous men among them, on whom Allah had bestowed a great bounty and who were afraid of Allah and His punishment, encouraged them to go forward. It was also said that the Ayah reads in a way that means that these men were respected and honored by their people. These two men were Yuwsha`, the son of Nun, and Kalib, the son of Yufna, as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Atiyyah, As-Suddi, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and several other Salaf and latter scholars stated. These two men said to their people,

 

[?????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ?????? ????????????]("Assault them through the gate, for when you are in, victory will be yours. And put your trust in Allah if you are believers indeed.") Therefore, they said, if you rely on and trust in Allah, follow His command and obey His Messenger, then Allah will give you victory over your enemies and will give you triumph and dominance over them. Thus, you will conquer the city that Allah has promised you. This advice did not benefit them in the least,

 

[???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ](They said, "O Musa! We shall never enter it as long as they are there. So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.") This is how they declined to join Jihad, defied their Messenger, and refused to fight their enemy.

 

The Righteous Response of the Companions During the Battle of Badr

Compare this to the better response the Companions gave to the Messenger of Allah during the battle of Badr, when he asked for their advice about fighting the Quraysh army that came to protect the caravan led by Abu Sufyan. When the Muslim army missed the caravan and the Quraysh army, between nine hundred and one thousand strong, helmeted and drawing closer, Abu Bakr stood up and said something good. Several more Muhajirin also spoke, all the while the Messenger of Allah saying,

 

«?????? ??? ???? ????????»(Advise me, O Muslims!) inquiring of what the Ansar, the majority then, had to say. Sa`d bin Mu`adh said, "It looks like you mean us, O Messenger of Allah! By He Who has sent you with the Truth! If you seek to cross this sea and went in it, we will follow you and none among us will remain behind. We would not hate for you to lead us to meet our enemy tomorrow. We are patient in war, vicious in battle. May Allah allow you to witness from our efforts what comforts your eyes. Therefore, march forward with the blessing of Allah.'' The Messenger of Allah () was pleased with the words of Sa`d and was encouraged to march on. Abu Bakr bin Marduwyah recorded that Anas said that when the Messenger of Allah went to Badr, he asked the Muslims for their opinion, and `Umar gave his. The Prophet again asked the Muslims for their opinion and the Ansar said, "O Ansar! It is you whom the Prophet wants to hear.'' They said, "We will never say as the Children of Israel said to Musa,

 

[????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????????](So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.) By He Who has sent you with the Truth! If you took the camels to Bark Al-Ghimad (near Makkah) we shall follow you.'' Imam Ahmad, An-Nasa'i and Ibn Hibban also recorded this Hadith. In the Book of Al-Maghazi and At-Tafsir, Al-Bukhari recorded that `Abdullah bin Mas`ud said, "On the day of Badr, Al-Miqdad said, `O Messenger of Allah! We will never say to you what the Children of Israel said to Musa,

 

[????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????????](So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.) Rather, march on and we will be with you.' The Messenger of Allah was satisfied after hearing this statement.''

Conquering Jerusalem

Allah's statement,

 

[??????????? ??????](for forty years;) defines,

[?????????? ??? ?????????](in distraction they will wander through the land.) When these years ended, Yuwsha` bin Nun led those who remained among them and the second generation, and laid siege to Jerusalem, conquering it on a Friday afternoon. When the sun was about to set and Yuwsha` feared that the Sabbath would begin, he said (to the sun), "You are commanded and I am commanded, as well. O Allah! Make it stop setting for me.'' Allah made the sun stop setting until Yuwsha` bin Nun conquered Jerusalem. Next, Allah commanded Yuwsha` to order the Children of Israel to enter Jerusalem from its gate while bowing and saying Hittah, meaning, `remove our sins.' Yet, they changed what they were commanded and entered it while dragging themselves on their behinds and saying, `Habbah (a seed) in Sha`rah (a hair).'' We mentioned all of this in the Tafsir of Surat Al-Baqarah. Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas commented,

 

[?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????????? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????????](Therefore it is forbidden to them for forty years; in distraction they will wander through the land.) "They wandered in the land for forty years, during which Musa and Harun died, as well as everyone above forty years of age. When the forty years ended, Yuwsha` son of Nun assumed their leadership and later conquered Jerusalem. When Yuwsha` was reminded that the day was Friday and the sun was about to set, while they were still attacking Jerusalem, he feared that the Sabbath might begin. Therefore, he said to the sun, `I am commanded and you are commanded.' Allah made the sun stop setting and the Jews conquered Jerusalem and found wealth unseen before. They wanted to let the fire consume the booty, but the fire would not do that. Yuwsha` said, `Some of you have committed theft from the booty.' So he summoned the twelve leaders of the twelve tribes and took the pledge from them. Then, the hand of one of them became stuck to the hand of Yuwsha` and Yuwsha` said, `You committed the theft, so bring it forth.' So, that man brought a cow's head made of gold with two eyes made of precious stones and a set of teeth made of pearls. When Yuwsha` added it to the booty, the fire consumed it, as they were prohibited to keep the booty.'' There is evidence supporting all of this in the Sahih.

 

Response:

 

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry with this one. Let’s expound on this tafsir that Zaatari has used:

 

The Speeches of Yuwsha` (Joshua) and Kalib (Caleb)

Allah said,

 

[????? ????????? ???? ????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ???????????](Two men of those who feared (Allah and) on whom Allah had bestowed His grace said...) When the Children of Israel declined to obey Allah and follow His Messenger Musa, two righteous men among them, on whom Allah had bestowed a great bounty and who were afraid of Allah and His punishment, encouraged them to go forward. It was also said that the Ayah reads in a way that means that these men were respected and honored by their people. These two men were Yuwsha`, the son of Nun, and Kalib, the son of Yufna, as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, `Atiyyah, As-Suddi, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and several other Salaf and latter scholars stated. These two men said to their people,

 

[?????????? ?????????? ???????? ??????? ????????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????? ??????? ?????????????? ??? ?????? ????????????]("Assault them through the gate, for when you are in, victory will be yours. And put your trust in Allah if you are believers indeed.") Therefore, they said, if you rely on and trust in Allah, follow His command and obey His Messenger, then Allah will give you victory over your enemies and will give you triumph and dominance over them. Thus, you will conquer the city that Allah has promised you. This advice did not benefit them in the least,

 

This tafsir shows that Joshua and Caleb told the people they would conquer the city that Allah promised them, the only place in history in which both of these men said mentioned this was in the Sinai desert before the ancient Hebrews crossed over into the promise land. What is even funnier is that the very next passage of this tafsir shows how the ancient Hebrews defied Moses and his two righteous companions by not participating and refusing to fight their enemies!

 

 

[???????? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????????? ??????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????????? ????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ](They said, "O Musa! We shall never enter it as long as they are there. So go, you and your Lord, and fight you two, we are sitting right here.") This is how they DECLINED TO JOIN JIHAD, defied their Messenger, AND REFUSED TO FIGHT THEIR ENEMY.

 

 

Last I checked, you kill people in Jihad and battles against your enemy! Zaatari didn’t even read this source closely before he pasted on his article! Amazing! What’s even worse is that he tries to wiggle himself out of this embarrassing situation by saying that the tafsir mentions nothing about women and children being massacred:

 

Notice even the tafsir say nothing of women and children being massacred, and we know the tafsir goes into every minor detail concerning stories and events, had women and children been killed the tafsir would have clearly mentioned it but yet this incident is absent here as well! So the burden of proof is on Quenn, Quenn has to show us where women and children are killed, so far he has not that, what he has done is quote a verse and came up with his own explanation which is not even to be found in the text nor the tafsir! Or oh wait should now accept tafsir Quennal Gale?

 

The story this tafsir is referring to in the Bible is Numbers 13 & 14. Numbers 13:1-3 says:

 

The LORD said to Moses, "Send some men to explore the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites. From each ancestral tribe send one of its leaders." So at the LORD's command Moses sent them out from the Desert of Paran. All of them were leaders of the Israelites. Num. 13:1-3

 

When the men explored the land of Canaan, the Bible tells us that they came back with this report:

 

They came back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the Desert of Paran. There they reported to them and to the whole assembly and showed them the fruit of the land. They gave Moses this account: "We went into the land to which you sent us, and it does flow with milk and honey! Here is its fruit. But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites live in the Negev; the Hittites, Jebusites and Amorites live in the hill country; and the Canaanites live near the sea and along the Jordan." Then Caleb silenced the people before Moses and said, "We should go up and take possession of the land, for we can certainly do it." But the men who had gone up with him said, "We can't attack those people; they are stronger than we are. "And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, "The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." Num. 13:26-33.

 

The reason why the tafsir says no such thing about women and children being killed is because no battle occurred in this instance. The twelve spies were sent to spy on the land of Canaan and only Joshua and Caleb came back with satisfactory reports. Obviously no battle happened because the Israelites remained in the desert for forty more years. My whole point for this was to show that the Quran commanded the Hebrews to go and fight/assault their enemies, and later on, when they finally listened to the words of God, people were later killed in these wars. Secondly, I ask Zaatari to show me where the Quran or Hadith condemned any Biblical war specifically and he hasn’t been able to produce anything whatsoever! I wouldn’t expect the Quran or the tafsir to mention “women and children” being killed because no such action occurred in the Biblical episode either.

 

It is obvious that when trying to defend Islam Zaatari will read things into the Islamic texts THAT ARE NOT EVEN IN THE TEXT! In his words and logic:

Note non of the passages he posts state anything about young boys being “enemy combatants along with fighting Muhammad”, all Zaatari does is invent this lie on his own!

As a side note, Zaatari it is “none” not “non”. Learn how to spell before trying to do rebuttals.

 

I will say non or none whenever I feel like. This missionary is trying to be smart with me when he thinks 3=1, I suggest you back to kg1 and learn maths since it seems all you Christians failed basic kindergarden maths.

Secondly since Quenn likes to play games, let us play the game on him, you see folks it is a known fact that the Bible specifically the NT is written in bad poor form of Greek usually written by low class un-educated people, who would typically be referred to as idiots, I shall quote Sam Shamoun himself to prove this:

 

You can say whatever you want Ms Zaatari, it matters nothing to me. As for math, I believe I passed all of my Math classes from grammar school to College which includes Calculus and other advanced courses. Also I don’t think 3 is one. I said that God is One in a Trinity. Hence in basic math number sets 1 for example can still be numerically more than one but yet be as one. As for the quote from Sam Shamoun:

 

Third, the reason why God chose men to write "bad" Greek is to demonstrate His sovereign power in taking men considered worthless and foolish by worldly standards to silence and confound those who presume to be scholars and wise men:

 

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things-and the things that are not-to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him." 1 Corinthians 1:18-29

 

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power. We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." 1 Corinthians 2:1-7

 

"Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’; and again, ‘The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.’" 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

 

This doesn’t mean that God didn’t use men who were educated in the Greek language to record His Word, but that it was God’s specific purpose to use unlearned men as well to highlight His supreme power and ability to use even the base elements of this world for his glory. (http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bravo2.htm)          

 

I don’t disagree with this at all. My point was about you Mr. Zaatari not about God or how he communicates his revelations to men!

 

This is from Sam Shamoun's very own article where he admits the Bible is written in bad Greek, and that this was done on purpose by God, to choose men who were not that smart. So if Quenn has a problem with me committing a few spelling mistakes, then what about his own God who specifically choose men who were not that smart! And remember God inspired the men of the NT, so could not God at least teach them how to spell and write properly? HMMMMMMM once again Quenn puts himself in a nice hole, Quenn has just in-directly attacked his own God, and his apostles since they too wrote bad Greek! So maybe next time Quenn should not try to be so smart with me because I will always counter it back against him.

 

The problem with this argument is that we have many instances in which the Quran was written in bad Arabic and it was supposedly dictated to Muhammad by God himself. Hence, if Zaatari believes that God should’ve chose men who were smarter then what can we say about God who is all-knowing? Is Allah considered dumb for these mistakes he made in the Quran? Time would fail me to present this in this article, a whole different subject.

 

Also on a side note I am not attacking the fact that the NT is written in bad Greek, I am just showing Queen's ignorance of his own book and of his own God and apostles, perhaps this will teach Quenn to not think he is so smart in the future.

 

Perhaps Quennal Gale should go teach his God on how to teach men to spell proper Greek since he likes bringing up my small spelling mistakes here and there. AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This is a wise decision for Zaatari not to attack the NT because of the “bad Greek” argument, it could easily be turned against the Quran much more forcibly. Secondly why should I go and teach God anything, last I checked it was Sami Zaatari, not God who was writing a response to my article.

 

l

ight of the above, I want to ask Zaatari by using the logic he employed to defend Muhammad’s beheading of the “young boys”

 

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE TEXTS DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT YOUNG BOYS BEING ENEMY COMBATANTS ALONG WITH FIGHTING MUHAMMAD IN THE WAR.

 

As the wise saying goes, “What is good for goose is also good for the gander”! Since it is obvious that Zaatari won’t be able to find this we wonder why he would leave himself to open ridicule in trying to address my material. It took him over a month to come up with a response and this is the best he can do. The Answering Christianity website must really be desperate because they will publish just about anything on their page. Zaatari sums it up best by saying:

 

What a nice missionary deception tactic by Quenn, Quenn believes that saying assault them means kill their women and kids! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Christian tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Christian tafsir at its best.

 

It is fun to read this rubbish especially when this missionary thinks he has scored a slam dunk argument. He keeps challenging me to show him where ALL the young men fought against the prophet, and yet again my reply is that  the punishment of killing all the men including the fighters was ordered by Sa'd who the Jews placed as their judge. So Quenn go learn Islamic history please because you show your stupidity and ignorance with these stupid challenges of yours.

 

Zaatari is attempting to change his argument is a sly and sneaky way. His original replies had nothing to do with “who ordered the tribe to be killed” but “were the people killed at fault for their own murder”. When we go back to what Zaatari’s earlier comments we find that his original stance was the people beheaded weren’t innocent:

 

The reason this was done was because the tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So THEY WERE RIGHTFULLY PUNISHED, also even this episode doesn’t compare with the Bible. Unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad spared the women and kids, whereas the Bible just killed the women and the children.

Also boys who had passed puberty back then were considered as men, so those boys who had passed puberty WERE TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS since their tribe had BROKEN THE TREATY with the Muslims. So hence Quenn has nothing again. The people who were killed were not innocent, so hence there is no crime. - http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.htm      (Emphasis ours)           

 

Again my whole point in bringing up this issue was to illustrate that innocent people were killed despite the fact that the Islamic text never mentions all of the young boys, who reached puberty, actually fought against the Muslims. Apparently Zaatari has given up trying to defend the indefensible so he has settled on blaming the entire episode on Sa’d. Zaatari vehemently argued that the young boys weren’t innocent because he was trying to justify why Muhammad gave in to Sa’d’s demands to have them beheaded. Also if Muhammad spared women and children, then the holy prophet, I say this with contempt, should’ve stepped in and not allow this action to go forth. If Zaatari argues that Muhammad doesn’t allow the killing of innocent women and children then why would Muhammad claim that Sa’d’s command is correct judgment of God then? See (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4368).

 

 

Indeed Christian tafsir at its best, they read the Quran and make up meanings which are not even found or suggest from the text, they then ignore all known Islamic tafsirs and Islamic history and come up with a conclusion of their own! In other words Quennal Gale's tafsir is like someone who said that WW1 AND WW2 was really a war with aliens and not man vs man, Quennal will ignore all the historic evidence showing the contrary, and Quennal will also read stories of WW1 and WW2 and make up his own meanings which are not backed by the stories themselves!

 

Really, I’m sure Zaatari’s great Biblical exegesis on Isaiah 13, Ezekiel 9 and Jeremiah 50, 51 gave us great confidence in his tafsir. His very own sources said the exact opposite of what he was trying to portray to his reader. I’ve never seen so many self destructive arguments and quotes in on article.

 

According to him, it is deceptive to add something to the text that isn’t there and it is a Christian method of Tafsir. So we need to ask Zaatari these questions:

 

If it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Islamic text why did you claim the young boys were enemy combatants?

 

Where does the Islamic text say that “the young boys who passed puberty” fought Muhammad in a war?

 

If you say that Muhammad was justified in beheading even those males who hadn’t fought him then we must ask you whether you are claiming that this is what Islam prescribes as part of its religion? In other words, does Muhammad’s example set precedence for all Muslim Jihadists to also kill non-combatants?

 

Your rants are really boring me now, for the millionth time, the reason why ALL the men were killed and not the male fighters only was because this is what Sa'd had prescribed, and it was the Jews who had called for Sa'd to punish them, so Quenn to nag to Banu Qurayza telling them why did you appoint Sa'd as your judge! So please STOP REPEATING YOURSELF, this is amazing Quennal Gale has repeated his challenge to me over and over again just within a few paragraphs, WE SAW YOUR CHALLENGE HOW MANY MORE TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO REPEAT IT?

 

The immediate problem for Zaatari can be clearly illustrated in this example:

 

1. If Sa’d prescribed the killing of all men including those who reached puberty, even if they didn’t fight Muhammad, and Muhammad went along with it then we must conclude that Muhammad allows the killing of innocent women and children!

 

This fact is inescapable and can’t be avoided here. While trying to defend Muhammad by placing the blame on Sa’d, Zaatari ends up incriminating Muhammad because he allowed Sa’d’s judgment to be final! As we showed earlier, Sa’d already had revenge on his mind dealing with this tribe already and he couldn’t wait to have them killed! Of course the Banu Quraysh didn’t know this and Muhammad didn’t care to spare them himself.

 

Perhaps Quenn should have just filled his article with the challenge over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over!

 

Because we are quite certain that Zaatari’s statements in reference to “enemy combatants” and “rightful punishment” are not supported by his own sources we therefore conclude with his very own words:

 

What a nice Muhammadan deception tactic by Zaatari, Zaatari believes that “rightful punishment and enemy combatant along with assuming all young boys passed puberty should have been killed” is considered justifiable! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Muhammadan tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Muhammadan tafsir at its best.

 

I’m sure our readers would agree that Mr. Zaatari is actually the one guilty of doing what he accuses Christians of. Now you know why he wanted to sweep this information under the rug by claiming that it was a mere “red-herring”. He expects his Muslim audience to blindly accept his statements without giving them the opportunity to actually see the other side of the debate.

 

What is a Muhammadan? What a stupid missionary calling us Muhammadans! This shows the level of stupidity and backwardness I am facing, this idiot is still living in the times of crusades and popes declaring wars on the Islamic nation! We do not worship a man named Muhammad, you on the other hand worship a man named Jesus, so do not twist it please.

 

Response:

 

Zaatari is a Muhammadean, I will stop calling him this once he stops calling me a missionary. For all of those who don’t know, the term “missionary” is a very derogative term in the Islamic world. Muslims could easily call us Christians but they choose this word because they know that it will present us in a negative light before our arguments are even heard. Hence, when we call them terrorists or Muhammadean they now see how we feel and it does the same for them. Once Zaatari addresses me correctly as a “Christian”, I will address him as a “Muslim”. Until then I see no reason to change my terminology for him or any other Muhammadean propagandist on Osama Abdallah’s website!

 

 

He again repeats his stupid claim, and again I tell him Sa'd ordered the execution with the backing of the Qurayza tribe since they put him in charge and agreed to follow his ruling.

 

And now with this point of Zaatari serving as a foundation you’re going to see just how Zaatari’s paper offers nothing more than mere general statements and intellectual hogwash fit for preschoolers who overdose on sugar treats such as cookies and candy.

 

You should know all about cookies and candies shouldn’t you? Since the west is generally the fatest place on the face of the earth with the USA as the capital of fatness, and I do not say this in offence I am just stating a plane fact, just like Quenn keeps bringing up my small spelling errors here and there I thought I would add this little smart comment of my own. :)

 

It also seems that you had too much candy while you wrote this rebuttal of yours since you repeated your challenge to me within every paragraph of yours. But anyway it is good; eat candy instead of pig since that is better for you.

 

A plane fact Zaatari? Don’t you mean plain fact?

 

Deuteronomy 2:32-37

 

Zaatari believes this passage shows the killing of innocent women and children:

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

 

Now let’s show you more of Mr. Zaatari’s comments dealing with these related passages:

Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

Zaatari is expressively clear to holding that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over. Therefore looking at Deuteronomy 2:32-37 we find that:

1. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. (God spoke to Moses and told him he will begin to give Sihon’s land for the Hebrews’ possession)

 

So far no aggressive action has taken place on the part of Moses and the Hebrews, they were only given a word from God and nothing more.

 

2. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. (After getting the word from God, Sihon decided to attack the Hebrews)

 

Based on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Sihon’s people would be:

 

1. Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.

 

2. Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.

 

3. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

 

My Response

 

Basically what Quenn is arguing is that since the people of Sihon came to fight Moses and his army, it was therefore justifiable for Moses and his men to kill all the women and children.

In thinking he is refuting me Quenn further exposes his own book and cult.

 

Response:

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

 

Actually Zaatri doesn’t show how I’ve exposed the Bible or Christianity. This is common Muhammadan rhetoric which is basically saying, “I can’t answer what you claim so I will just brush it aside.”

 

This missionary has to lie saying I did not respond to his stupid claims, I did respond and showed how stupid he really is, but thanks Quenn thanks for lying yet again I really enjoying crushing a missionary like you:

 

Response:

 

Actually Zaatari didn’t respond to my claim as he alleges, he only further exposed himself as we shall show you below.

 

Basically what Quenn is arguing is that since the people of Sihon came to fight Moses and his army, it was therefore justifiable for Moses and his men to kill all the women and children.

In thinking he is refuting me Quenn further exposes his own book and cult.

 

Why do I say that? The reason I say that is because when you compare this with the prophet Muhammad they do not even come close, unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad has a far higher moral standard of warfare and how to conduct it.

 

We must ask ourselves, when the prophet went to war with the people WHO HAD FIRST ATTACKED HIM, did he kill them all? Did he slaughter each single one of them till he left non alive? The answer is a simple NO.

 

The prophet ALWAYS captured his enemies when they had won a battle, not kill them all, the prophet would also spare the women and children!

 

As we see, in the Bible there is no mercy, the so called men of God just fought till they killed everyone including the little helpless kids and babies.

 

Quenn also further digs a hole for himself, because note what the verses say:

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz. And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us. Deut 2:32-37

 

Note it says ALL HIS PEOPLE, what does that mean? That means that even 3 month old babies were included in it!!!! And 1 month old babies! And 1 year old kids!!!!

Is Quenn that silly to actually believe it was okay and justifiable to not try and spare those kids once the battle had dwindled down?

 

What makes it more hilarious is that Quenn is calling them enemy combatants! Yes, little babies are enemy combatants indeed.

 

And once again, how did those babies fight? HOW.

 

Note he states:

 

3. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

 

Yes, in your dreams pal. Those people who were killed included little helpless babies, the least God's chosen people could have done was spare them and take them as prisoners, or even adopt them as their own. Instead they kill those babies who did not even have a say in the fight, they just got dragged into the battle. Secondly, the whole episode of babies going into such a battle is very hard to believe anyway, which does throw some doubts into this whole event.

 

So so much for this liar claiming I didn’t respond, this is taken from my last rebuttal. Notice how stupid I make Quenn look, Quenn is trying to justify the slaughter of ALL women and children because the text says that the people of the town came out to fight him, but Quenn makes such a moron out of himself because this also means the BABIES CAME OUT TO FIGHT AS WELL! AND HOW DO 4 MONTH OLD BABIES FIGHT?!!!!!!!! DO THEY HOLD SWORDS? I am forced to say WHAT AN IDIOT.

 

Go on quenn, keep your great work up, I am loving this and so are our Muslim readers, and I bet our Christian readers have their hands on their heads with your stupidity.

 

Response:

 

As I said before, Zaatari has failed to respond to my rebuttal with any real answer. Let’s continue with more of Zaatari’s comments before answering his rhetoric sufficiently.

 

In his comments, which we documented earlier, Zaatari clearly says:

 

Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

 

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

 

Zaatari is expressively clear in holding that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone” and not “some” which would leave room for others to be left over. Also if Zaatari claims that it’s okay to go to war against people who “break treaties’, how much more justifiable is it when someone goes to war in response to an attack by someone else? Also Zaatari is doing the very same thing he claims I did earlier assuming that

 

The reason I brought the point up of ALL and not some is because this liar wrote:

 

It is obvious that Mr. Zaatari doesn’t understand English too well, along with attempting to read more into my statements then what was intended. He is focusing on the fact that some women and children were killed intentionally, not being the result of collateral damage, in the Bible

 

SOME women and children weren’t killed, ALL women and children were killed as the text shows:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

The liar tried to trick his readers by saying only some women and children were killed which is false.

 

Dealing with Deuteronomy 2:32-37 Zaatari continues:

 

ALL is SOME

 

That is why he questioned the justification of Moses killing “the women and children,” since these groups weren’t fighting in battle even though Deuteronomy 2 clearly says:

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

If Zaatari clearly says that ALL CAN’T BE SOME then the conclusion is inescapable that Moses fought EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO WERE FIGHTING in the war. This would leave no room for innocent bystanders because the Bible clearly mentions that “ALL” not “SOME” came to fight

 

WOW! I am refuted now, Quennal gale has refuted me! He has shown the women and children who were killed were not innocent because they came out and fought, so 2 year old boys and girls came with knives in their hands, including 5 month old babies, wowwwwwwww!!!!!!! This is so funny I must say, is this serious or what? Does Quenn believe that babies really came out to fight?

 

QUENNAL GALE BELIEVES THAT BABIES CAN FIGHT IN WAR!

 

Response:

 

In relation to Deuteronomy 2:32-37, we want to present to you Zaatari’s comments from his most current article:

 

 

From where does anyone conclude that these passages say go kill women and children as said in the Bible? What Quenn did is READ INTO THE TEXT, HE HAS CLAIMED SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE NOR SUGGESTED.

 

Here Zaatari is explicitly stating that you can’t suggest something or read into any text something that isn’t suggested or claimed. When we read Deuteronomy 2 it clearly says:

 

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

 

If the Bible says that ALL OF SIHON’S PEOPLE CAME OUT TO FIGHT, where does it suggest anywhere that there were any small babies or 5 month olds? As we turn to Zaatari’s comments again we find:

 

What a nice missionary deception tactic by Quenn, Quenn believes that saying assault them means kill their women and kids! HILLARIOUS! This is what you call the Christian tafsir, which is making an interpretation of something that is not there. Christian tafsir at its best.

 

So notice this coward was trying to equate the Quranic story with that of his own Bible! Yet the Quranic story says nothing about slaying women and children, the Quran says the land was given to Moses, and that he should assault the inhabitants, but from WHERE DOES QUENN CONCLUDE THAT THIS MEANS THAT HE WAS COMMANDED TO KILL THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

 

In dealing with Surah 17 and 5 Zaatari holds to the belief that the Quran says nothing about slaying women and children, but yet he is trying to convince us that the Bible is saying that innocent women and children were killed in Deuteronomy 2:32-37 WHEN THE BIBLICAL STORY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THIS! If the Bible says that “ALL PEOPLE FOUGHT” this would clearly mean that there was nobody below fighting age in this scenario. Even Zaatari disproves his own argument with his comments below:

 

So please stop lying, your own Bible shows that ALL MEANS ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, I did not make this up. But it is nice that Quenn claims that this is a slander, very good he finally sees the light, it is a slander indeed, and that slander is your own very Bible!

 

If the Bible says that  ALL MEANS ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, this would clearly mean that when “Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz”, it included all the women and children and left no room for none to be left behind! In order for all the people to fight in a battle there were no 5 month old babies! Zaatari needs to stop trying to convince us of something that ISN’T FOUND IN THE TEXT AND STOP READING IN SOMETHING NOT VERIFIED ANYWHERE!

 

Now if Zaatari is trying to defend Muhammad’s atrocities along the lines that this was “justifiable” we must only remind him of his very own classification of “enemy combatants”. Anyone who fights against someone is an enemy combatant and the Bible clearly says “ALL FOUGHT MOSES”. This clearly means that the Israelites didn’t kill innocent women and children since they apparently were all fighting in this instance. It is very easy for Zaatari to chide me for saying, “how can all be some,” when speaking of Muhammad murdering young boys who were not combatants. But when I show that the texts in the Bible clearly states that ALL the people engaged the Israelites in battle, Zaatari abandons his own criteria regarding all meaning all in order to slander the Bible.

 

Please do not tell us what you THINK, bring us proof and evidences, bring us proof and evidence for the prophet Muhammad committing atrocities, do not tell us your own Christian biased opinion.

 

Secondly Quennal Gale is lying yet again, he is trying to make it seem that I am slandering the Bible, but since this fool is a missionary he is lying so openly now, I QUOTED THE BIBLE NOT MY OPINIAN YOU FOOL! And I shall quote it again:

 

Actually I’m not telling anybody what I think, did not Zaatari claim that anybody above puberty would be considered an enemy combatant? Yes. Did not Zaatari say that “ALL” can’t refer to just “some” but everybody? Yes. I’ve already presented proof; I used Zaatari’s very own words against him! If that isn’t evident enough then why is he writing articles then? You don’t believe what you write Zaatari? Are now your words considered my words now?

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 3

 

1-7

 

1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. 4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves

 

Joshua
Chapter 6

 

17-27

17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. 20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. 24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. 26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

 

So please stop lying, your own Bible shows that ALL MEANS ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, I did not make this up. But it is nice that Quenn claims that this is a slander, very good he finally sees the light, it is a slander indeed, and that slander is your own very Bible!

 

1. Since “ALL” is not “SOME”

Then

 

2. There is no way “innocent” women and children were killed because the Bible would have clearly mentioned that “SOME” fought.

 

Quennal Gale thinks he has refuted me when all he has done is make us laugh at him, he is really trying to show that little babies fought in battle! What can I say to that but DESPERATION, this is Christian aplogetics for you, and this is a missionary for you.

 

Notice the contradiction here:

 

First Zaatari says: So please stop lying, your own Bible shows that ALL MEANS ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, I did not make this up.

 

Then he contradicts this in relation to the Biblical passages in which ALL is used by saying:

 

Quennal Gale thinks he has refuted me when all he has done is make us laugh at him, he is really trying to show that little babies fought in battle! What can I say to that but DESPERATION, this is Christian aplogetics for you, and this is a missionary for you. (Notice that he is assuming that “ALL” in this case doesn’t refer to all since the babies can’t fight)

 

If all referred to everybody INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN, then how can Zaatari claim I am desperate for using this very same understanding to prove that ALL INCLUDING WOMEN AND CHILDREN FOUGHT IN THE BIBLICAL BATTLES? Does Zaatari actually understand what he is saying? If he is alleging that “babies didn’t fight in the biblical battles”, why mention that all refers to everybody including women and children beforehand?

 

IF “ALL” DOES REFER TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN

 

Then:

 

1. Zaatari’s argument would be refuted dead in its track because there is no room for anyone to be left behind. Since the text doesn’t mention anything about babies being left behind and Zaatari says don’t read anything into the text that isn’t there, then he can’t use the “baby argument” to claim that they were either left behind or fought in the battle as 5 month olds. The text obviously shows that all the combatants were of fighting age which would leave no children.

 

IF “ALL: DOESN’T REFER TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN BUT LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR OTHERS:

 

Then:

 

2. Zaatari’s argument about “all women and being killed” would fall to the ground because in this instance “ALL” wouldn’t mean that every single baby or woman were killed.

 

Either way it’s a losing argument for Zaatari.

 

 

Why do I say that? The reason I say that is because when you compare this with the prophet Muhammad they do not even come close, unlike the Bible, the prophet Muhammad has a far higher moral standard of warfare and how to conduct it.

We must ask ourselves, when the prophet went to war with the people WHO HAD FIRST ATTACKED HIM, did he kill them all? Did he slaughter each single one of them till he left non alive? The answer is a simple NO.

 

The prophet ALWAYS captured his enemies when they had won a battle, not kill them all, the prophet would also spare the women and children!

As we see, in the Bible there is no mercy, the so called men of God just fought till they killed everyone including the little helpless kids and babies.

Quenn also further digs a hole for himself, because note what the verses say:

 

Response:

 

Actually Muhammad never said that he adhered to a higher standard of warfare then the Biblical prophets. This is nothing more than the figment of Zaatari’s imagination.

 

When I say the prophet has a higher moral standard of warfare than the Bible I do not say this as meaning the prophet is more moral than the former prophets, Quennal Gale is putting words in my mouth like the stupid missionary he is. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS BIBLICAL STORIES, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MOSES, JOSHUA, AND OTHERS CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN THIS WAY NOR MASSACRED ALL THESE PEOPLE. So please do not act like I believe this filthy rubbish found in your Bible, I believe they are lies ascribed to the prophets of God, and I believe that every prophet of God is righteous and merciful and would not massacre women and children.

 

Actually I never said that Muhammad was a more moral person than the former prophets, Zaatari is so quick to allege that I’m putting words in his mouth while proceeding to call me stupid. Notice what I actually said:

 

Actually Muhammad never said that he adhered to A HIGHER STANDARD OF WARFARE then the Biblical prophets. This is nothing more than the figment of Zaatari’s imagination.

 

Now compare this to what Zaatari said, in reference to me putting words in his mouth:

 

When I say the prophet has a higher moral standard of warfare than the Bible I do not say this as meaning the prophet is more moral than the former prophets, Quennal Gale is putting words in my mouth like the stupid missionary he is.

 

Did I say anything about Muhammad being more moral than the former prophets? No. I explicitly said that Muhammad didn’t adhere to any “higher standard of warfare”. This has nothing to do with his personal moral in comparison to the former Biblical prophets. As for Zaatari not believing what is written in the Bible, I think he expressed it best in his comments:

 

Please do not tell us what you THINK, bring us proof and evidences, bring us proof and evidence for the prophet Muhammad committing atrocities, do not tell us your own Christian biased opinion.

 

Secondly Quennal Gale is lying yet again, he is trying to make it seem that I am slandering the Bible, but since this fool is a missionary he is lying so openly now, I QUOTED THE BIBLE NOT MY OPINIAN YOU FOOL! And I shall quote it again:

 

In the words of Zaatari we can say in reference to what you believe:

 

Please do not tell us what you THINK, bring us proof and evidences, bring us proof and evidence that the biblical stories were wrong and frowned upon by Muhammad and Allah, do not tell us your own Muhammadean biased opinion.

 

Secondly Ms. Zaatari  is lying yet again, but since this fool is a Muhammadean he is lying so openly now, I QUOTED THE QURAN NOT MY OPINIAN YOU FOOL! And I shall quote it again:

 

The (Qur'an) is indeed a message for you (Muhammad) and your people, (all of) you shall be brought to account, and ASK those of our apostles whom WE SENT BEFORE THEE, `Did We appoint any deities other than the Most Merciful whom they should worship?'" S. 43:44-45

 

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..." S. 10:94

 

"And We have not sent before you (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know." S. 16:43-44

 

"To Moses We gave nine clear signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel..." S. 17:101

 

The Quran is very clear: it is for Muhammad and his followers to turn and ask Jews and Christians dealing with matters of doubt or issues in which they have questions and consult the Bible.

 

Most of the unbelievers follow only conjecture which certainly cannot serve as a substitute for the Truth. God knows well what they do. No one could have composed this Quran besides God. THIS CONFIRMS THE EXISTING BOOK (THE BIBLE) and explains itself. There is no doubt that it is from the Lord of the Universe. Do they say that Muhammad has invented it? (Muhammad), tell them, "If your claim is true, compose only one chapter like it and call on anyone besides God for help. S. 10:36-38 Sarwar (http://al-shia.com/html/eng/books/quran/quran-and-hadith/10.htm)

 

If you look at these passages you will see that the Quran instructs Muhammad to enquire from the People of the Book (Jews, Christians) to verify the Quran itself, not the other way around. Hence, we base our arguments on the Quran and the Hadith, not Zaatari’s Muhammadean opinions!

 

Secondly I never said that the prophet Muhammad said that, so therefore you saying I said that is a figment of your own imagination, so again your insults backfire on you! What a fool you are, and me calling you stupid and a fool is not an insult, its actually true, you believe babies fight in battles!

 

I don’t think Zaatari actually knows what she is saying to be honest. Also I never once said that I believe that babies fought in battles, here are my comments again, for it seems like Zaatari has a hard time comprehending basic English:

 

Moreover, Zaatari has assumed without any evidence from either the Bible OR THE QURAN that young infants were included in these battles which the Israelites fought. Zaatari has committed the fallacy of “begging the question”, assuming something he hasn’t proven and then tries to argue this unproven assumption as a means of refuting me.

 

The fact that the texts specifically say ALL the inhabitants of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews actually proves that there were no infants which were involved or killed. In other words, the text presuppose that everyone which went out to fight the Israelites were of a mature age, at least old enough to be able to fight in a warfare. Emphasis mine (http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html) 

 

Now if it makes Zaatari feel better to argue a lie against me then go ahead, anybody can see for themselves that there wasn’t any mention of infants fighting in any battles. My comments are clear.

 

In fact Muhammad claimed to adhere to the very same Bible Zaatari attacks:

 

This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; but it is a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, and the explanation of the Book, WHEREIN THERE IS NO DOUBT, from the Lord of the worlds." S. 10:37

 

"And BEFORE THIS WAS THE BOOK OF MOSES as a guide and a mercy: and THIS BOOK IS A VERIFICATION (OF IT) IN ARABIC TONGUE to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to the righteous." S. 46:12

 

"And lo! It is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds, which the True Spirit hath brought down upon thy heart, that thou mayest be (one) of the warners, In Plain Arabic Speech. And lo! IT IS IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE MEN OF OLD. Is it not a token for them THAT THE DOCTORS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL KNOW IT?" S. 26:192-197

 

Say: "I AM NO BRINGER OF NEW-FANGLED DOCTRINE AMONG THE MESSENGERS, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." S. 46:9

 

According to the Quran we see that Muhammad's message is:

 

1. A VERIFICATION of the Torah and Gospel
2. A VERIFICATION of the book of Moses in Arabic tongue
3. The SCRIPTURES OF MEN OF OLD in Plain Arabic Speech.

 

Quennal Gale assumes that these books mentioned here are referring to his corrupt Bible! Amazing! Every major tafsir, and every major scholar from Imam Hanafi, Imam Shafi, Imam Malik, and Imam Hanbali all head your Bible to be corrupt and not the one referred to in the Quran. Should us Muslims abandon the consensus of the very best Islamic scholars for your own interpretation when we have seen that over and over again that you are a liar.

 

Response:

 

Basically Zaatari believes that I am assuming, but he proceeds to assume that the bible is corrupted. That’s laughable. Secondly Christians don’t care about your Imams and their Islamic scholarship. If Zaatari believes that the Bible is corrupted then he needs to present his proof if he is truthful:

 

Is not He (best) Who produceth creation, then reproduceth it, and Who provideth for you from the heaven and the earth? Is there any God beside Allah? Say: BRING YOUR PROOF, IF YE ARE TRUTHFUL! S. 27:64

 

In dealing with the issue of whether another god exists besides Allah, the Quran challenges all to present their proof supporting such a claim if they are truthful. Since Zaatari believes that another version of the Bible existed then he must present his proof. Remember it is Zaatari who claims the Bible is corrupted; hence he needs to present evidence outside of what the Quran says as well as prove to us that the original books said something different. Here are Zaatari’s comments directed at me dealing with the issue of “Violence in the Bible and the Quran”:

 

 

So note, right after I quote the terror verses from the Bible, Quennal immediately evades the real topic at hand, and switches it solely on the Quran! This does show he was trying to save face big time, because rather than address those terror verses I showed, he simply evades them and then changes the topic to deal with the issue of women and children being killed in Islam. How convenient on his part, and how funny to see him shift his position, at the beginning of his article he said the focus is on the violence in BOTH the Quran and the Bible. When I quote the irrefutable terror verses in the Bible, he then says the focus will now be on Islam. Hilarious!!!!!!! (http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/quennel_gale_rebuttal_2.htm)         

 

Notice how Zaatari has done what he’s accused me of doing:

 

1.      He claims the Bible is corrupted but he immediately fails to show us this can be so, especially when he cannot provide the differences between the corrupted Bible with his “supposed” uncorrupted Bible.

2     He immediately evades the real topic at hand (illustrated in point 1) by switching solely to quoting the Quran in an attempt to save face, as opposed to addressing “who corrupted the Bible and what was changed”..

3.      Notice how it’s convenient for him to immediately make the accusation about the Bible being corrupted while just quoting random Quranic passages.

                                                                                                 

The Bible isn’t corrupted as Mr. Zaatari wants us to believe, nor does the Quran state which verses, books or practices are corrupted in the Bible. Since Zaatari wants to argue that the original Torah, Gospel and Psalms taught something different compared to the texts currently available then he must provide the documentary evidence supporting this, and not just state it.

 

But this is another topic which I will be addressing very soon in full detail which will silence this missionary. How desperate they are they now need the Quran to back their Bible up, but I though the Quran is all corrupt and bad? Now it is good for you to use? Hmmmmm again Quenn shows how unreliable and inconsistent he is, what criteria does Quenn have to use the Quran to back his Bible up? He has NON, Quenn does not believe in the authority of the Quran and believes its corrupt and not of God, so therefore why does he quote it to prove his Bible is true? Do you use a corrupt book to prove your own book?

 

Secondly Quenn may counter saying why do Muslims use the Bible if we believe it is corrupt? Us Muslims do not believe the Bible is 100% corrupt, we believe that the Bible and the Torah were revealed by God, but over time you corrupted it and the original ones are lost and gone, however so some of its contents do remain in your books, and the parts which agree with the Quran we agree with, and the ones that don’t we don’t agree with. The Quran and hadiths give us this criterion, WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO USE THE QURAN TO BACK YOU UP? YOU HAVE NON. So thank you for exposing your hypocrisy, and inconsistency.

 

Ms. Zaatari has given us yet another rope to hang himself with, stick around for the laugh because this is sure going to be funny. First he says this in reference to Christians:

 

1. How desperate they are they now need the Quran to back their Bible up, but I though the Quran is all corrupt and bad? Now it is good for you to use?

 

Notice that we are desperate for using the Quran to back up the Bible since we believe the Quran is corrupt and bad! How does Zaatari feel about this? He tells us:

 

2. Hmmmmm again Quenn shows how unreliable and inconsistent he is, what criteria does Quenn have to use the Quran to back his Bible up?

 

So if we use a corrupted book to verify our book it shows that we are inconsistent and unreliable!  Zaatari finishes by saying:

 

Quenn does not believe in the authority of the Quran and believes its corrupt and not of God, so therefore why does he quote it to prove his Bible is true? Do you use a corrupt book to prove your own book?

 

 

Now if this isn’t the most self-destroying argument I’ve seen in years, I don’t know what else is!  However, Zaatari knows the dilemma he’s placed himself in so he tries to save himself by saying:

 

Secondly Quenn may counter saying why do Muslims use the Bible if we believe it is corrupt? Us Muslims do not believe the Bible is 100% corrupt, we believe that the Bible and the Torah were revealed by God, but over time you corrupted it and the original ones are lost and gone, however so some of its contents do remain in your books, and the parts which agree with the Quran we agree with, and the ones that don’t we don’t agree with. The Quran and hadiths give us this criterion, WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO USE THE QURAN TO BACK YOU UP? YOU HAVE NON. So thank you for exposing your hypocrisy, and inconsistency.

 

Yes we can counter Zaatari and he isn’t going to like this:

 

1.      If Zataari only believes part of the Bible why is he using it to validate what the Quran says in one area but calling it wrong in other areas?

2.      Isn’t it inconsistent to believe a God who can’t protect a divine revelation from human men?

3.      Where exactly does the Quran tell you to believe in parts of the Bible that agree only with the Quran and Hadith?

 

Notice exactly what the Quran says:

 

"The (Qur'an) is indeed a message for you (Muhammad) and your people, (all of) you shall be brought to account, and ASK those of our apostles whom we sent before thee, `Did We appoint any deities other than the Most Merciful whom they should worship?'" S. 43:44-45

 

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..." S. 10:94

 

"And We have not sent before you (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know." S. 16:43-44

 

"To Moses We gave nine clear signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel..." S. 17:101

 

Therefore to try and turn the Quran around and force it to say something that it never was intended to say proves that Muslims can't even trust their own god in their attempts to disprove Christianity. This also disagrees with Muhammad even further:

 

Now then, for that (reason), call (them to the Faith), and stand steadfast as thou art commanded, nor follow thou their vain desires; but say: "I believe in WHATEVER BOOK Allah has sent down; and I am commanded to judge justly between you. Allah is our Lord and your Lord: for us (is the responsibility for) our deeds, and for you for your deeds. There is no contention between us and you. Allah will bring us together, and to Him is (our) final goal. S. 42:15

 

Here Muhammad clearly says that he believes whatever God sends down, whether the Torah, Gospel, Quran or any other book that has God's words in it. Hence, this can refer to the Epistles, or even the Hindu Vedas, since Islam claims that Allah sent messengers to all nations!! Also further study into Islamic history shows that the Bible isn't corrupted:

 

Mujahid. Ash-Sha'bi, Al-Hassan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi' bin Anas said that,

 

<who distort the Book with their tongues.>

means, "They alter (Allah's Words)."

 

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. Then,

 

<they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah;>

 

As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged Volume 2, p. 196, 2000 -vs. 3:78)

 

The corruption Islam clearly refers to deals with only the Arabic translations of the Torah and Gospel!! Hence the original Hebrew and Greek message of the Torah and Gospel respectively aren’t corrupt and still intact!! However, Muslims will ignore their own history in trying to promote false theories such as this one!!! If Islamic history, Quranic verses and Muhammad said that the Bible isn't corrupted, why are Muslims promoting this theory? Muhammad has the answer:

 

Abu Huraira reported God's Messenger as saying:

"In the last days there will be LYING DAJJALS who will bring you traditions of which neither you nor your fathers have heard, so beware of them. (Mishkat ul-Masabih, Bk. 1, Ch. VI, p. 42 [tr. James Robson, Ashraf, Lahore, 1963])

 

According to Muhammad himself, people who introduce theories that weren’t known by him or his companions nor his forefathers are considered lying dajjals or lying antichrists!! Let that be a note for all modern day Muslim apologists who prescribe to Bible corruption. Ibn Khazeem was the first to claim Bible corruption so are Muslims following him as a prophet of Islam? This would be in strict violation of orthodox Islam!! Need we say more? No.

 

 

So with Zaatari’s comments in mind, let’s ask him these questions:

 

1. What verses of the Quran do these Bible passages contradict?

 

2. Since you don’t believe something not mentioned in the Quran, where exactly does the Quran chastise the method of warfare observed in the Holy Bible?

 

Zaatari clearly stated that he will disbelieve in specific Biblical practices if they are not mentioned in the Quran and/or contradict it. Where are these practices condemned in the Quran? Where does Allah specifically say, “Biblical practices of warfare are wrong”?

 

The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you, YOU have to show me the Quran allowing the killing of children and women, I showed it does not, so therefore the Bible contradicts. Pay attention.

 

Actually the burden of proof is very much on Zaatari! He clearly mentioned that he won’t believe anything not found in the Quran. Since:

 

1. Muhammad doesn’t chastise the Biblical wars; he can’t believe that they are wrong.

 

As for him showing that the Quran doesn’t allow for one to kill innocent people I point Zaatari back to this:

 

"So they journeyed on till when they met a young boy; he slew him. Moses said, ‘What! hast thou slain an innocent person without his having slain anyone! Surely, thou hast done a hideous thing’ ... ‘And as for the youth, his parents were believers, and WE FEARED LEST ON GROWING UP HE SHOULD INVOLVE THEM INTO TROUBLE THROUGH REBELLION AND DISBELIEF;’" S. 18:74, 80 Sher Ali

 

This agrees perfectly with the Hadith:

 

This tradition has been narrated by the game authority (Yazid b. Hurmus) through a different chain of transmitters with the following difference in the elucidation of one of the points raised by Najda in his letter to Ibn Abas: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them UNLESS YOU COULD KNOW WHAT KHADIR HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE CHILD HE KILLED, OR YOU COULD DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A BELIEVER (AND A CHILD WHO WOULD GROW UP TO BE A NON-BELIEVER), SO THAT YOU KILLED THE (PROSPECTIVE) NON-BELIEVER AND LEFT THE (PROSPECTIVE) BELIEVER ASIDE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4457)

 

This young boy was an innocent person and he was slain. The reason given was that it was believed he would grow up to be a disbeliever. Even the Hadith’s that Zaatari used only showed that Muhammad disapproved of killing women and children in SOME OF HIS BATTLES, NOT ALL! Zaatari should be the first to pay attention to his material and his own religion before trying to educate others!

 

 

Also we want to point out that Zaatari’s comment is again self-refuting and contradictory. He says:

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

 

Notice that he says something must be mentioned in the Quran for him to believe it. But he contradicts himself in this same paragraph:

 

It doesn’t mean that I wont believe anything not mentioned in the Quran, what I don’t believe is things that CONTRADICT the Quran found in a supposed holy book which ascribes things to men of God which contradict God's true word.

 

I do not contradict myself at all, it is Quenn who cannot read English, here is what I said:

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

 

I said that if something CONTRADICTS THE QURAN THEN I WONT BELIEVE IT, AND I FURTHER SAID THAT IF SOMETHING IS NOT IN THE HADITHS AS WELL. So pay attention next time.

 

Response:

 

Notice how Zaatari only quoted half of his statement to his reader. Let’s post this again with further detail for you:

 

First he says:

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

 

 

Zaatari clearly is saying that something must either be mentioned in the Quran, or if it’s in the Bible must not contradict the Quran as well as if it isn’t mentioned in the Hadith or Quran, he won’t believe it. Notice again that he says that if it is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

 

WHICH CLEARLY MEANS IF IT ISN’T MENTIONED IN THE QURAN ZAATARI WON’T BELIEVE IT.

 

Later on Zaatari claims:

 

It doesn’t mean that I wont believe anything not mentioned in the Quran

 

So this is a contradiction! If he says that he won’t believe anything not found in the Quran but later explains that he will believe “something not found in the Quran” long as it doesn’t contradict his holy book IT STILL SHOWS THAT ZAATARI CONTRADICTS HIMSELF! The only thing he’s in agreement on is the “contradiction of the Quran”! He isn’t on agreement whether he would believe something not found in the Quran or if he won’t believe it if it isn’t mentioned in the Quran! You can’t escape this glaring contradiction in Zaatari’s whole argument! This explains why he only focused on the portion of his statement, which reiterated the “contradiction of the Quran” but failed to say why he mentioned that 1. He wouldn’t believe anything not found in the Quran and then later on say 2. It doesn’t necessarily mean that I won’t believe something not found in the Quran.

 

We know that Zaatari won’t believe anything that contradicts the Quran but the million-dollar question is? Would you believe something not found in the Quran or does it have to be found in the Quran for you to believe it? Zaatari can’t have it both ways and no matter how he tries to claim we aren’t paying attention it won’t save him from the fact that he destroyed his argument by claiming that

 

1. He doesn’t believe anything not found in the Quran, because this sounded good in one place.

 

But later contradicted this by saying:

 

2. He would now believe something not necessarily found in the Quran because he may want to prove a particular point unproveable under the first assumption!

 

So he continues by saying:

 

So after saying that he won’t believe anything “not mentioned in the Quran” Zaatari contradicts this very stance by saying “it doesn’t mean he won’t believe anything not mentioned in the Quran” but only that which contradicts it! So which one is it Zaatari? If you don’t believe things not found in the Quran and then later claim you would believe something not necessarily found in the Quran, why would you disbelieve material not found in the Quran? Dear reader do you see how intellectually confused and bankrupt this so-called polemicist’s points truly are! He doesn’t know what to believe. He changes positions and stances like the weather!

 

A typical liar, he quotes me and lies about what I say, typical missionary I must say, I did not say I won’t believe anything that is not the Quran, I said I won’t believe something THAT CONTRADICTS THE QURAN and that something is not even found in the Quran nor the hadiths.

 

Really, notice what Zaatari actually said:

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it

 

If Zaatari only believed in something that didn’t contradict the Quran then he never would have said “if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it”. It is very apparent that Zaatari isn’t a native speaker to English. This statement of his clearly says that “Something HAS TO BE MENTIONED IN THE QURAN FOR IT TO BE BELIEVED”. No matter how much Zaatari wants to cry foul he can’t get around it. Zaatari was better off saying his latest statement initially it would’ve saved him the trouble and the embarrassment.

 

Notice what Quenn says I said:

 

So after saying that he won’t believe anything “not mentioned in the Quran

 

And here is what I said :

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

 

So as you can see, Quennal Gale is lying and even lies right after quoting me! What a blind idiot I must say, Quenn keeps telling me to correct my spelling, my advice to Quenn is to tell his holy spirit to teach him languages and learn on how to read English.

 

So dear reader you see how dumb and stupid Quenn is? You see how bankrupt Christian polemic is? What more can I say?

Babies fight in battles- Quennal Gale

 

How can I lie when the very first part of Zaatari quote explicitly say:

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it

 

I know English very well Mr. Zaatari, you don’t say that “something must be found in a particular book for you to believe’ and then later on in the very same sentence mention “even it is not in the book, I will believe it as long as it doesn’t contradict the book in question”. This is a clear contradiction! The only one blind is Zaatari and it’s his problem for trying to ignore the first half of his sentence to cover up his gross blunder.

 

What more?

 

Mr. Zaatari has committed an obvious logical fallacy in his stance. In each type of anti-Christian argument, Muhammadan propagandists like Zaatari usually employ assumptions and misinterpretations which are commonly called “fallacies.” Read the definition of fallacy and then continue on to get a better understanding of Islamic deceitful conversion tactics:

 

FALLACY- An idea OR OPINION FOUNDED ON MISTAKEN LOGIC OR PERCEPTION; a false notion. 2. A statment or thesis that is INCONSISTENT with logic or fact and thus renders the conclusion invalid. 3. The quality of being in error; incorrectness of reasoning or belief. 4. The quality of BEING DECEPTIVE. [Latin fallacia, deceit, trick, from fallax (stem fallac-), decietful, from fallere, to decieve]

Fallacy refers to something that is based on incorrect logic, whether presumptuous or intentional. This word originally comes from a Latin word which means deceit or trick!! In the Bible people who deceive others are those who clearly follow the leading of Satan, the master of deceit and craftiness. Zaatari is arguing along this line:

 

THE TRUE BIBLE VERSES ARE THOSE WHICH AGREE WITH THE QURAN

Zaatari and Muhammadan propagandists who use this argument are intentionally twisting what their Quran says, assuming that the Quran says something which it does not say and proceed to use this mistaken assumption in their debate and argumentation. They are also committing the fallacy of false dilemma in which they intentionally limit the number of options one has to choose from, such as believing that only biblical verses which agree with the Quran are correct and those that do not are therefore false. Hence, the Muslim is claiming that the only uncorrupted verses in the Bible are those that agree with the Quran!

 

Notice Quenn says that we twist what the Quran says, yet he claims from this verse:

 

O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our apostles, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. "O my people! ENTER THE HOLY LANDE which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Allah fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "ASSAULT THEM at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." S. 5:21-24

 

Quenn claims that from this verse it says that women and children are massacred! Talk about twisting!

 

And yes Quenn has his information right for once, things in the Bible which agree with the Quran are true, and those that don’t are false, this is a criteria which we have from Islam, however so WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU HAVE TO USE THE QURAN TO BACK YOU UP?! Talk about logical fallacy! Quenn uses a book he attacks 24-7 to prove his Bible is authentic!

 

Response:

 

My comments didn’t not say that S. 5:21-24 showed that women and children were massacred, here is what my actual comments say on this issue:

 

If you read this Quranic passage, Allah himself is saying that he is for the Children of Israel “assaulting” the people of the Promised Land! This would include Sihon, Bashan and all the others the Hebrews fought! These same wars were considered atrocities by Zaatari. According to the God-fearing men, whom the Quran mentions, the way to enter the Holy Land was to fight for it in offensively! Just because the Quran isn’t as detailed as the Bible regarding the wars doesn’t mean IT WAS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE QURAN! If Zaatari tries to argue that this didn’t refer to all the Hebrew battles with the specific inhabitants of the Holy Land then by his own words he must show us where this specific information is given in the Quran and the Hadiths! Logically we can conclude that:

 

   1. Zaatari believes the Quran is totally true

   2. The Quran mentions that the Israelites must assault the people of the Holy Land to get the land

   3. Allah promised the Holy Land to the Israelites

   4. Because the “assault and issue of the Holy Land is mentioned in the Quran” it is therefore true. (http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html)         

 

The point of my whole argument was showing that Allah, Zaatari’s own god, was for the Israelites “assaulting” or going to war to take the Promised Land. As a result of Allah wanted the Israelites to go in and fight for what he promised them, we would then begin to experience the battles of Sihon, Bashan, and other various military expeditions in which women and children were ultimately killed. Now the glaring problem for Zaatari is that his own god knew about these wars but never once mentioned that the killing of children and women were wrong in either the Hadith or Quran! Zaatari completely left out some valuable information in his so-called response, to the Biblical wars. Even though the Bible does mention women and children being killed in the Biblical wars, Zaatari fails to elaborate on the point that his prophet called this a “HOLY MILITARY EXPEDITION”:

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

 

The Prophet said, "A prophet amongst the prophets carried out A HOLY MILITARY EXPEDITION, so he said to his followers, 'Anyone who has married a woman and wants to consummate the marriage, and has not done so yet, should not accompany me; nor should a man who has built a house but has not completed its roof; nor a man who has sheep or shecamels and is waiting for the birth of their young ones.' So, the prophet carried out the expedition and when he reached that town at the time or nearly at the time of the 'Asr prayer, he said to the sun, 'O sun! You are under Allah's Order and I am under Allah's Order O Allah! Stop it (i.e. the sun) from setting.' It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he collected the booty and the fire came to burn it, but it did not burn it. He said (to his men), 'Some of you have stolen something from the booty. So one man from every tribe should give me a pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' (They did so and) the hand of a man got stuck over the hand of their prophet. Then that prophet said (to the man), 'The theft has been committed by your people. So all the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge of allegiance by shaking hands with me.' The hands of two or three men got stuck over the hand of their prophet and he said, "You have committed the theft.' Then they brought a head of gold like the head of a cow and put it there, and the fire came and consumed the booty. The Prophet added: Then Allah saw our weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 353: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.353) 

 

Why would Muhammad call this military expedition “holy”, especially since he knew that women and children were killed? The story of the sun standing still is found in Joshua 10:12-14 in the context of Joshua and the Israelites fighting against the five Amorite kings (cf. 10:1-15):

 

On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel! Then Joshua returned with all Israel to the camp at Gilgal. Joshua 10:12-14

 

Since Muhammad quoted this event specifically why didn’t he chastise Joshua or any of the Biblical prophets for their actions? This is a question that Zaatari has failed to answer yet again.

 

 

Quenn attacks many verses of the Quran as false, but when he sees a verse saying the Bible is true Quenn he jumps up screaming that the Quran says the Bible is true therefore Muslims must follow the Bible and that the Bible is true. Hmmmm what is wrong with that? Although it must be said the Bible being referred to in the Quran is not the corrupt book that Quenn has.

 

Yes I do attack many verses in the Quran but the reason I jump up screaming that the Quran verifies the Bible is because MUSLIMS ARE REQUIRED TO BELIEVE WHAT THE QURAN SAYS AND VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE QURAN BASED ON PREVIOUS REVELATION.

 

"And lo! It is a revelation of the Lord of the Worlds, which the True Spirit hath brought down upon thy heart, that thou mayest be (one) of the warners, In Plain Arabic Speech. And lo! IT IS IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE MEN OF OLD. Is it not a token for them THAT THE DOCTORS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL KNOW IT?" S. 26:192-197

 

Say: "I AM NO BRINGER OF NEW-FANGLED DOCTRINE AMONG THE MESSENGERS, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear." S. 46:9

 

If Muhammad didn’t bring anything new in doctrine then the Quran needs to say the same thing the Bible is saying. If Muhammad claims that his book is the scriptures of the men of old THEN WE SHOULDN’T SEE ANYTHING NEWLY ADDED. Because the Quran contains many new and fabricated stories the best defense that Zaatari can conjure up is “Bible corruption”!

 

This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than God; but it is a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, and the explanation of the Book, WHEREIN THERE IS NO DOUBT, from the Lord of the worlds." S. 10:37

 

"And BEFORE THIS WAS THE BOOK OF MOSES as a guide and a mercy: and THIS BOOK IS A VERIFICATION (OF IT) IN ARABIC TONGUE to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to the righteous." S. 46:12

 

How can the Quran verify something unknown and corrupted? If we can’t compare the Quran to previous scripture what leg do we have to stand on that it is accurate and true? We have manuscripts of the Bible dating back centuries before the advent of Islam. By the time of Muhammad, the Bible was translated in countless languages which would make it impossible to corrupt unless we took every single Bible in every single language after Muhammad and changed them while destroying the correct ones! I guess Zaatari must believe that aliens came and stole all of the Bibles after Muhammad!

 

 

Quennal Gale then changes topic, which is what a coward will do, note folks the topic of this debate is terrorism in the Quran or Bible? Quenn now jumps to another topic about what the Quran says about the Bible! What a fool indeed I must say, this is the sign of a loser, when he has been beat he jumps to another topic. I shall ignore Quenn's red herring and if he is so intent on this other topic then I challenge Quenn for an open audio debate on what the Quran says about the Bible.

 

Moreover, Zaatari has assumed without any evidence from either the Bible OR THE QURAN that young infants were included in these battles which the Israelites fought. Zaatari has committed the fallacy of “begging the question”, assuming something he hasn’t proven and then tries to argue this unproven assumption as a means of refuting me.

 

The fact that the texts specifically say ALL the inhabitants of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews actually proves that there were no infants which were involved or killed. In other words, the text presuppose that everyone which went out to fight the Israelites were of a mature age, at least old enough to be able to fight in a warfare.

 

I shall use Quenn's own Bible to refute him, this is amazing:

 

Actually Zaatari’s very own close friend Osama Abdallah’s articles are filled with red-herrings, unrelated subject material and other rabbit trails. One of Osama’s articles can start with Pornography in the bible, switch to the corruption of the Bible as proven by the NIV Bible committee, and then end with Science in the Quran. If Zaatari views various topics within an article as a sign of a coward and loser why is he associating himself with Osama Abdallah and “Answering Christianity?

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

 

32-37

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

 

Quennal Gale now denies his own very Bible, his Bible says women and children were killed and Quenn is saying there are no infants! Or wait a minute, are little ones referring to little green Martians?

 

If this isn’t incoherent I don’t know what is. I never denied anything from this passage, I said that ALL THE PEOPLE CAME TO FIGHT THE HEBREWS AND THAT ALL WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN THIS BATTLE. Zaatari believed that “ALL” couldn’t refer to everybody since he assumed that infants weren’t participating in this battle. The “little ones” were translated as “children”. We never denied that children weren’t killed we just based it on Zaatari’s logic that:

 

It is okay to kill enemy combatants who break a treaty, since violating such an agreement results in their just and fair punishment. (Source)

 

Since Zaatari believe that it is okay to kill enemy combatants who break treaties, I don’t see why he has a problem with killing enemy combatants, whether, man, woman or child who is actually fighting in a war!

 

Based on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Sihon’s people would be:

 

   1. Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.

   2. Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.

   3. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

 

If Zaatari clearly says that ALL refers to “everyone” then the conclusion is inescapable that Moses fought EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WHO WERE FIGHTING in the war. This would leave no room for innocent bystanders because the Bible clearly mentions that “ALL” of Sihon came to fight. The fact that the texts specifically say ALL the inhabitants of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews actually proves that there were no infants which were involved or killed. In other words, the text presuppose that everyone which went out to fight the Israelites were of a mature age, at least old enough to be able to fight in a warfare.

 

 

I would also like to point out that so far Quennal Gale has only attempted to address ONE of the passages I have brought ignoring the others ones I had posted, so I shall take this time to remind Quenn of other terror verses found in the Bible which he is ignoring:

 

Ezekiel 9:5-7

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."

 

Isaiah 13:15-18

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

 

Perhaps this missionary will attempt to respond to these 2 passages, and what is worst for Quenn is that his pathetic response for Deuteronomy will not work here, because Quenn is arguing that in Deuteronomy that the slaughter of women and children was legit because they came out to fight Moses (this includes little babies). However so as we see in these passages it is God's army that is the one attacking the people and committing the raids, and that these men are being commanded to kill all the children whom they find. So please Quenn respond to these verses as well, although I know you can’t.

 

Response:

 

Actually my response was hardly pathetic; Zaatari has still yet to convince us how “ALL PEOPLE FIGHTING” can leave room to assume that there were infants who naturally couldn’t fight in a battle. If you assume that infants must be fighting then you are clearly ignoring the clear message of the text, which shows that there were no infants in the tribe during the Biblical war with Israel.  This is an assumption that would only serve to be valid if the text said that “SOME” of the people came to fight!  As for his passages of Isaiah and Ezekiel see above in this article, already refuted.

 

Note he states:

 

3. The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

 

Yes, in your dreams pal. Those people who were killed included little helpless babies, the least God's chosen people could have done was spare them and take them as prisoners, or even adopt them as their own. Instead they kill those babies who did not even have a say in the fight, they just got dragged into the battle. Secondly, the whole episode of babies going into such a battle is very hard to believe anyway, which does throw some doubts into this whole event.

 

We must reiterate this portion of the biblical text again:

 

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

All of Sihon came to fight the Hebrews, which means that there were no innocent babies in this battle. If Zaatari believes otherwise then he has to:

 

Explain to us why “ALL” no longer means that everyone went to fight, but that it actually implies that there were “SOME” who did not go with Sihon to war against God’s people.

 

He must also show us where the Quran speaks against these wars, that these biblical references are contradicting what is taught in the Quran.

Basically, he must show where the Quran says that the Bible is corrupt for saying that prophets killed innocent babies during these wars.

 

This is getting really funny now; especially Quenn's second and third challenges to me, this fool doesn’t realize the burden of proof is not on me but on him! It is Quenn who has to show me the Quran mentioning these wars with women and children being killed, not me showing the Quran condemning these incidents, the very fact that the Quran mentions some of these incidents and also makes no mention of women and children being killed is enough to silence Quenn, what Quenn now has to do is show where the Quran or tafsir or hadith talk about Moses and Joshua killing women and children. And Quenn knows he can never do this, so the burden of proof is on the stupid missionary not on me, and even this fool knows that but he wants to play games.

 

Response:

 

How exactly is the burden of proof on me? It was Zaatari who originally argued that Islam doesn’t allow for the killing of innocent women and children. We’ve disproved this notion because Muhammad only disallowed such actions in SOME OF HIS BATTLES. The Quran also allows you to kill any innocent child if it is determined this child would be a disbeliever which is verified by Sahih Muslim Hadith. Also if the Quran doesn’t condemn the killings of the Biblical war then it only serves to show that Quran accepts them as true and accurate!

 

Zaatari wants to ignore the glaring fact that his god doesn’t address the Biblical wars because Allah didn’t find anything wrong with them. You either accept something or you disapprove of something. If Allah didn’t disapprove of them then clearly accepts them.

 

Secondly I already posted the passages from Deuteronomy that all women and children were killed, the LITTLE ONES, so therefore Quenn should go read his Bible instead of playing dumb. Secondly notice how desperate Quenn is becoming, he is now arguing that the people of Sihon had NO BABIES, what?! You are telling me that a tribe of large people have no little kids? Once again this fool makes assumptions without backing it up, the burden of proof is on Quenn to show us that the people of Sihon were all grown up and had no little kids, all Quenn can do is guess and give us assumptions and what he thinks yet its so strange he never provides a text to prove his argument.

And here is the passage again:

 

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

 

32-37

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

 

Response:

 

Zaatari is creating a “strawman argument” and refuting without actually addressing my point on this verse. I never denied that no children weren’t killed I only showed that there were no babies present at the time when Sihon went war with the ancient Israelites. Zaatari tries to counter by saying:

 

Secondly notice how desperate Quenn is becoming, he is now arguing that the people of Sihon had NO BABIES, what?! You are telling me that a tribe of large people have no little kids?

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying! The funny thing is that Zaatari helps to prove my point when he says that in relation to ALL THE PEOPLE FIGHTING that:

 

So please stop lying, your own Bible shows that ALL MEANS ALL, AND THAT INCLUDES WOMEN AND CHILDREN, I did not make this up.

 

Now if “all means all” and then ALL PEOPLE OF SIHON fought the ancient Hebrews how can Zaatari claim that they had babies then? This would mean that “ALL” doesn’t refer to ALL and that Zaatari was lying when he said it referred to all women and children! What is even more amusing is that Zaatari claims that I am assuming without any textual support for my claim:

 

Once again this fool makes assumptions without backing it up, the burden of proof is on Quenn to show us that the people of Sihon were all grown up and had no little kids, all Quenn can do is guess and give us assumptions and what he thinks yet its so strange he never provides a text to prove his argument.

 

The proof that all of Sihon was grown up is seen in the very first verse of this passage:

 

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

 

How can Sihon and ALL HIS PEOPLE COME AND FIGHT IN A BATTLE if there were babies who were to young to fight? If a text states that everybody participated in any particular battle even THIS WOULD INCLUDE EVERY SINGLE PERSON WITH NONE LEFT ON THE SIDE. In order for ALL THE PEOPLE OF SIHON TO FIGHT they must all been of war age not babies or infants. Do notice that Zaatari’s argument of babies who were infants and couldn’t fight isn’t proven anywhere in the text.

 

1. Explain to us why “ALL” no longer means that everyone went to fight, but that it actually implies that there were “SOME” who did not go with Sihon to war against God’s people and that these were infants.

 

Zaatari can’t win for losing. He either has to accept that “ALL” doesn’t refer to everybody but leaves the door open for those who didn’t participate in the wars, which in turn, could be argued against him by saying “ALL” doesn’t mean that the innocent children were killed, since in this instance “ALL”, wouldn’t mean everybody. If Zaatari does hold to the fact that ALL includes “everybody” then the only way he can claim that infants were left behind or were in any particular tribe is if they were mentioned as being left behind. I’m sure that he can produce a text which proves his argument that babies were left behind even though ALL WERE FIGHTING AGAINST THE HEBREWS.

 

 

These verses sufficiently silence Quenn and his non stop guess work, the Bible tells us that these people did have little children, so therefore as we can see Quennal Gale's guesswork and suggestions are never to be trusted or taken seriously since as we see this man is very weak on his sources. And if Quenn is so weak on his own Bible then what about the Quran?! Do you expect me or any other Muslim to believe anything this fool has to say on the Quran when he does not even know his own Bible? Please let us get real.

 

Actually this verse does nothing to silence me. I never denied that there weren’t children I only said that Zaatari was wrong in believing that there were infants since the text explicitly says that:

 

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz

 

If All of Sihon’s people came out to fight then the little children who participated were of war age status. There were no infants present whatsoever. If Zaatari is so worried about guess work I WONDER WHY IS HE TRYING TO GUESS THAT THERE WERE INFANTS WHEN THE PASSAGE CLEARLY SAYS ALL PEOPLE CAME TO FIGHT? Last I checked this was base on an unprovable assumption. ALL MEANS EVERYBODY. Since everybody fought there were no babies in this tribe at the time. Case closed.

 

Zaatari’s own words say it best for us:

 

Let me make it clear, if the Quran mentions something, then I will believe it, however if there is something mentioned in the Bible which CONTRADICTS the Quran, and is not even mentioned in the Quran, nor the hadiths, then I will surely not believe in it.

 

Because we obviously know that the Quran mentions nothing about innocent children being killed in these battles Zaatari is not applying his own criteria consistently or honestly!

 

The Quran does mention the battles, but the Quran does not mention anything about commanding Moses and his army to kill women and children, so therefore I am not being inconsistent. It is Quenn who is being consistent and is becoming so desperate he is trying to put words in the Quran. We also saw the tafsir and the tafsir said nothing about women and children being killed, why not? We all know the tafsirs and hadith material always give very detailed accounts of everything that happened and so on, so why didn’t the tafsirs or hadiths mention Moses and his army killing women and children?

 

Response:

 

Since the Quran doesn’t mention anything about women and children being killed by Moses then why is Zaatari expecting us to believe that infants were present when the Biblical passages mentions no such thing? As for the Hadith and Tafsir, it is very explicit; Muhammad only disapproved of killing some of the time NOT ALL THE TIME.

 

 

 

Secondly the doctrine of the Quran does not teach us to kill women and children neither, so therefore Allah would not have told Moses to kill women and children when Allah never makes such a command to us in the Quran concerning wars and so on. In fact Allah tells us this in the Quran:

 

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

The Prohibition of mutilating the Dead and stealing from the captured Goods

Allah said:

 

[????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????????](but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)

This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:

 

«??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????????»(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)

It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. '' There are many other Hadiths on this subject.

 

So therefore the Biblical stories DO CONTRADICT THE QURAN, the Quran commanded us not to transgress the limits in war which meant DONT KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, the Biblical wars had no limits and everyone was killed including women and children hence this stands on complete odds with the Bible.

 

Response:

 

Surah 2:190 basically only prohibits killing women and children within the allowable prohibitions of Islam. As S. 18:74, 80 & Sahih Muslim, (Book 019, Number 4457) show, there are ways to circumvent this prohibition. In Iraq today, this command is not being followed because both Sunni and Shiite fighters believe each others children are disbelievers which would clearly fall under the above Quranic verse and Hadith mentioned. Also if Zaatari is using Surah 2:190 as evidence of not killing children, unless they fought in battle, then Sa’d’s judgment clearly violates this matter because he had all the young men killed. According to Zaatari, these boys were to die because they were enemy combatants, whether they fought or not! If so then we would have innocent people being killed against the clear injunction of the Quran, which was condoned by the prophet of Islam himself!

 

After all, Zaatari later says in reference to Surah 17:

 

Where in any of those verses does it mention children and women being killed to the full? WHERE? It seems that Quenn has read something that is not even in the text! Note non of the passages he posts state anything about women and children being killed, all Quenn does is invent this lie on his own!

All the verses say is that the Holy land was given to Moses and his people, and to the children of Israel, and it tells them to assault the people living there, and victory will be yours.

 

Hmmm is it just me or what? WHERE IN THOSE VERSES DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND KIDS BEING KILLED.

 

A better question is where do the biblical passages say that INNOCENT women and children were killed? The only persons killed in this battle were

Sihon , HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE,

Who came out to fight the Hebrews at the battle of Jahaz. These people weren’t innocent.

 

How sad that Quenn has to play dumb, here is the passage yet again:

 

Chapter 2

 

32-37

 

And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us

 

You see I always quoted the verse in context, I did not just quote verse 32 to 33 as Quenn is making it out to be, I was quoting from 32 TO 37, and as we see the people of Sihon were all murdered including women and children, Quenn is simply trying to ignore the passage in context but that’s okay, he is a missionary and that’s what we expect of them to hide the evil nature of the Bible.

 

Response:

 

Quoting the verse in context and actually understanding what it means are two totally different things. The problem with Zaatari stems from what he just said:

 

…, I was quoting from 32 TO 37, and as we see the people of Sihon WERE ALL MURDERED including women and children…

 

If the people of Sihon were “ALL” murdered, where can Zaatari assume that there were young infants and children “who weren’t of fighting age” when the passage says that:

 

Then Sihon came out against us, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to fight at Jahaz.

 

If “ALL” of the people came to fight the Hebrews then this would mean that “ALL” of them were of fighting age and were killed in the context of an offensive battle they launched! How can I be accused of lying when I am citing the very same text Zaatari is using? Zaatari believes I’m wrong because he doesn’t believe that the entire tribe didn’t have any babies or innocent infants. This is his assumption, which he is entitled to, but it isn’t supported from anywhere in the text! If the text is clear and Zaatari wants to believe something different then the onus is upon him to provide textual proof supporting his theory in this specific situation. Zaatari can “cry foul” all he wants but if he has nothing to support this claim other than “assumptions” he has nothing! Christians don’t care what Muslims think, we want proof, not propaganda!

 

 

After some rants the fool writes:

 

This is a great example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the authors of Osama’s site that we are constantly having to deal with.

 

It is always nice to see an idiot who thinks he is smart, indeed the only bankrupt one is Quennal Gale who even contradicts his very own Bible. I would like to also thank Quenn for this 'rebuttal' of his since it really does strengthen the faith of Muslims when they read such rubbish garbage and it also weakens the faith of Christians when they see how stupid their apologists are. My advice to Christians is open your eyes and accept the true faith of Islam, just look at how stupid your apologist really is!

 

Actually Zaatari hasn’t shown where I contradicted the Bible. If he believes that the Bible shows women and children were killed in war, and I agreed to this statement, then this is in agreement with each other. However, the examples used by Zaatari claimed that innocent children were killed while we’ve shown that he has seriously misinterpret the text along with failing to read the commentaries used in his support. As you can see from this article, Zaatari should’ve left this issue alone because he has seriously damaged his debating credibility.

 

Quenn also basically gives the same response for:

Deuteronomy 3:1-7

Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

He once again uses the same weak response which further hurts him and which further shows how superior Allah, Islam, and the prophet Muhammad is compared to his fake god.

 

Response:

 

My response was hardly weak, as Zaatari would have you believe. If Zaatari truly believed in his argument he would have never deleted the first half of my article that dealt with these passages. My article wasn’t long since it was the shortest response out of all of my articles addressing him. Here is what Zaatari tries to call weak:

 

Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

 

Not to sound like a broken record, but here again is what Zaatari said regarding the use of “ALL”:

 

Also Quenn tried to be funny by saying I think down is up and up is down, how hilariously not funny, but what is funny is that Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME? So it seems you are the one who probably thinks up is down, and down is up since you believe ALL is SOME.

This is why I say, you can never trust a missionary. NEVER.

 

Zaatari is expressly saying that the meaning “ALL” means “everyone.” It does not mean “some” which would imply that there were non-combatants which the Israelites killed. Looking again at Deuteronomy 3:1-7, the references say:

the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei.

 

Notice once again Quenn is playing stupid even as he quotes the verses, note the passages he quotes shows that WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED, does Quenn bother to reply to this? No, he just barks like a fool completely ignoring it giving the false impression that he has actually dealt with it.

 

Notice how stupid Quenn also sounds, he is now trying to say all means some and all does not really mean ALL, now that response would work if he could back it up, but yet again this loser resorts to guess work and assumptions and provides no proof! The verses themselves show us that the king of OG and all his people were killed:

 

Response:

 

Zaatari is now to the point where he is can’t even read material correctly now! If the verse clearly shows that the king of OG AND ALL HIS PEOPLE WERE KILLED, what was the context they were killed in? War, as the verse clearly shows:

 

 

king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei.

 

The king of Bashan fought with all of his people. Hence, there were no infants or children who weren’t of fighting age and who weren’t participating in this war. If I am saying that “All means some and all does not really mean ALL” then why did I explicitly argue that ALL THE PEOPLE CAME OUT AND FOUGHT WHICH INCLUDED WOMEN AND CHILDREN? I also mentioned that BECAUSE THIS REFERED TO ALL PEOPLE THIS WOULD MEAN THAT NO INFANTS WOULD BE LEFT BEHIND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SOME NOT ALL! Anybody reading my paper could have come to this conclusion.

 

 

Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan CAME OUT AGAINST US, HE AND ALL HIS PEOPLE, to battle at Edrei. And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves. Deut. 3:1-7

 

Notice how the text says that Moses and his men killed all the women and children of not only OG, but Sihon as well, and Quenn denies that the women and children of Sihon were killed how amusing.

 

Response:

 

Really, I denied that women and children were killed? Wow, this surely is news to me:

 

Since “ALL” OF BASHAN’S PEOPLE came out to fight the Hebrews, this leaves no room for innocent people. All of the people would have been enemy combatants. There is no way possible that there could have been innocent women and children since the passage clearly says “ALL” the people of Bashan came to fight against the Hebrews. Logically we can conclude that there was no one under the age of “being an enemy combatant” since the passage clearly didn’t say “SOME” but “ALL” people fought in the war. Zaatari mentioned himself that “ALL” refers to everybody and leaves no possible room for anyone being left behind. Zaatari is obviously angry because his very own trump card, his own argument, was found to be as good as a 2 of clubs. (http://www.answer-islam.org/counter_rebuttal_to_Sami_Zaatari_4.html)         

 

I CLEARLY SAID ALL THE PEOPLE CAME OUT TO FIGHT THE HEBREWS. I mentioned that of the “women and children” who were killed, they weren’t innocent because they were fighting in this battle! I never denied that women and children were killed I explicitly refuted the claim that they were innocent children and women! Again this serves to show that Zaatari doesn’t command a full understanding of the English language yet. There is no way a sound English speaker would understand “no innocent women / children were killed” because ALL OF THEM FOUGHT IN THE BALLE, to be the same as saying “no women and children weren’t killed at all”. If I clearly said “nobody was under the age of being an enemy combatant”, this would mean that all the women and children killed were enemy combatants! Whether Zaatari chooses to believe this doesn’t matter to me. I won’t let him get away with accusing me of “not saying something” when my comments showed otherwise!

 

Also it is very interesting that Zaatari didn’t provide this paragraph in his response to my rebuttal. He knew very well that I never mentioned that “women and children” weren’t killed in these wars. I only proved that no “innocent women and children” were killed. Zaatari’s chose to leave out this information so he could portray me as being a lying missionary! Just like his master Osama Abdallah, he knows his Muslim audience probably doesn’t have the resources or the time to check out his material so he posts it regardless of whether it’s factual or not. If Zaatari ostracizes me for not answering his articles, how can he make excuses for himself when he doesn’t represent my entire article in his alleged response?

 

Based on Mr. Zaatari’s criteria, Bashan’s people would be:

 

Considered enemy combatants because they are now in a war.

 

Their punishment would be considered just because they were fighting against the prophets.

 

The people killed were not innocent so there is no crime here.

 

Typical missionary liar, my criteria never included killing women and children as your sick filthy Bible allows, so please do not twist what I said and do not twist your book with mine. This missionary is so bankrupt that not only does he try to put words in the Quran, he also now tries to put words in my mouth!

 

And once again Quenn makes us laugh more; Quenn is basically telling us that little babies came out to fight so therefore they were enemy combatants, how funny indeed.

 

Response:

 

Wow, such a great response! If Zaatari believes that all of OG, Basha, and Sihon, came out and fought the Hebrews because the text explicitly says “ALL THE PEOPLE FOUGHT”, how can he make up the claim that “This can’t be ‘all’ because these tribes must have little babies”? If these tribes had “little babies” then the text never would have said “ALL CAME TO FIGHT”. How can “ALL” people fight but yet NOT ALL OF THEM WERE PRESENT? If there were little babies then the text would have said “SOME OF THE PEOPLE CAME TO FIGHT”. Zaatari is well aware of this and that is why he has to resort to using unverifiable and amusing claims dealing with “little babies, etc.” If Zaatari believes that there were little babies who couldn’t fight then he needs to prove this. The text says ALL CAME TO FIGHT! ALL MEANS EVERYBODY, WHICH MEANS THE KIDS AND WOMEN OF THESE TRIBES WERE OF “FIGHTING AGE”!

 

After some rants Quenn says:

 

Since you now know that the story is found in the Quran and Hadith:

Where does Muhammad say these actions were wrong?

Where does the Quran say that women and kids weren’t being killed?

 

Talk about a broken record, Quenn repeats the same challenge again! I have already shown how the Quran tells us to not transgress the limits during war which means do not kill women and children, and that the prophet Muhammad himself explicitly said do not kill women and children. On top of that I have showed that the Quranic account of the Moses and his people fighting mentions no such thing of women and children being killed, nor do the tafsirs and hadiths. But what proof does Quenn have to show the contrary? NOTHING! All he has is his stupid assumptions and guess work which even contradict his own Bible!

 

Zaatari has shown what the Quran says in relation to the Islamic battles that occurred in the 6^th century B.C.! Look at his verse and tafsir:

 

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

The Prohibition of mutilating the Dead and stealing from the captured Goods

Allah said:

 

[????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????????????](but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.)

This Ayah means, `Fight for the sake of Allah and do not be transgressors,' such as, by committing prohibitions. Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah), "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said:

 

«??????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????????? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ????? ?????????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????????»(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)

It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "A woman was found dead during one of the Prophet's battles and the Prophet then forbade killing women and children. '' There are many other Hadiths on this subject.

 

As you can clearly see, this prohibition was given because of Muhammad’s very own battles. Since the Biblical wars occurred thousands of years before Islam, Zaatari needs to show us that Muhammad instituted these prohibitions because of the Biblical wars. Since no evidence exist to support this theory Zaatari has presented nothing but conjecture. At the very best we find that Muhammad prohibited the killing of women and children AFTER THE ACTIONS OF HIS OWN WARS. Another problem for Zaatari is that the Biblical prophets couldn’t live by Muhammad’s commands since he didn’t exist in the OT era! The Quran recognizes that Muslim heretics would try to present these types of arguments against the “people of the book” so it says:

 

If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, we should have blotted out their sins and admitted them to gardens of bliss." "If only they had performed the Torah and the Gospel and all that was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have eaten from above and from under their feet. Among them is a People (umma) on the right course, but evil is that which many of them do..." "Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything until you PERFORM the Torah and the Gospel, and what was revealed to you from your Lord. S. 5:68-71

 

Both the Torah and OT show that God revealed wars, in which children and women were killed, when they took up arms against the Hebrew people in battle. The Quran, or Hadith never prohibits any OT action relating to war that was taken in the name of God. Zaatari’s Quranic explanation only deals with wars AFTER MUHAMMAD’S BATTLES! Yet, he’s trying to make it apply back to the OT time when no such rule was in place by God. One perfect example to use to prove this deals with the issue of alcohol. Before Muhammad, people who followed God drunk alcohol (though drunkenness was prohibited, drinking alcohol wasn’t) even during the time of Islam. However, because of his followers becoming drunk, Muhammad decided to prohibit it all together:

 

Narrated by Aisha:

When the last verses of Surat-al-Baqara were revealed, the Prophet went out (of his house to the Mosque) and said, "The trade of alcohol has become illegal." (Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, 3.429)

 

Narrated by Jabir bin Abdullah:

I heard Allah's Apostle, in the year of the Conquest of Mecca, saying, "Allah and His Apostle made illegal the trade of alcohol, dead animals, pigs and idols." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What about the fat of dead animals, for it was used for greasing the boats and the hides; and people use it for lights?" He said, "No, it is illegal." Allah's Apostle further said, "May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah made the fat (of animals) illegal for them, yet they melted the fat and sold it and ate its price." (Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith, 3.438)

 

Narrated by Jabir ibn Abdullah:

A person came from Jayshan, a town of Yemen, and he asked Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) about the wine which was drunk in their land and which was prepared from millet and was called Mizr. Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) asked whether that was intoxicating. He said: Yes. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) said: Every intoxicant is forbidden. Verily Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, made a covenant to those who drank intoxicants to make them drink Tinat al-Khabal, They said: Allah's Messenger, what is Tinat al-Khabal? He said: It is the sweat of the denizens of Hell or the discharge of the denizens of Hell. (Sahih Muslim Hadith, 4962)

 

Here, there was no prohibition for alcohol before “the year Mecca was conquered”. Hence, if Muslims would try to argue that wine was wrong before the advent of Islam it wouldn’t hold water because Allah didn’t prohibit earlier believers from drinking wine. The problem for Zaatari is glaringly clear because Muhammad prohibited the killing of women and children AFTER SOME OF HIS WARS. Which would mean that Allah didn’t prohibit this before Islam and Muhammad? If so then Zaatari could’ve clearly presented a Hadith which showed that the “killing of women and children” by the Hebrews was wrong before Islam. Notice how Islam prohibits certain pre-Islamic practices:

 

Believing in the crucifixion was prohibited and declared wrong:

 

And because of their (the Jews) saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger- THEY SLEW HIM NOT NOR CRUCIFIED HIM, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise. S. 4:157

 

Believing that God has a son was prohibited and declared wrong:

 

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! ALLAH IS THE MESSIAH, SON OF MARY. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. HIS ABODE IS THE FIRE. FOR EVIL-DOERS there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying A PAINFUL DOOM WILL FALL ON THOSE OF THEM WHO DISBELIEVE. S. 5:72-73

 

Believing in Previous religion (Judaism, Christianity) was declared prohibited and wrong:

 

The Religion before God is Islam (submission to His Will): Nor did the People of the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny the Signs of God, God is swift in calling to account." S. 3:19

If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good). S. 3:85

 

According to these passages, no other religion is acceptable to God besides Islam.

 

"... (V. 2:62) This Verse, (and Verse 5:69) mentioned in the Qur'an should not be misinterpreted by the reader as mentioned by Ibn Abbas... (T. At-Tabari Vol. I, P. 323) that the order of this Verse was canceled by the Verse 3:85... [i.e. after the coming of Prophet Muhammad... on the earth, no other religion except Islam, will be accepted from anyone." (Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Interpretation of the Meaning of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari, p. 15, f. 2)

 

Again,

 

"This verse (V. 5:69) and (V. 2:62) should not be misinterpreted by the readers as mentioned by Ibn Abbas (T. At-Tabari, Vol. P. 323) that the order of this Verse was canceled by the (V. 3:85). And after the coming of the Prophet Muhammad... no other religion except Islam will be accepted from anyone." (Ibid, 183, f.)

 

The Quran is very clear on certain practices it described as being wrong and unlawful before the coming of Muhammad. It even mentions that previous accepted religions were no longer in effect due to the final revelation of Islam. The Quran claims to be complete and explains everything needed for our guidance was to be explained explicitly:

 

And there is no animal in the earth, nor bird that flies on its two wings, but (they are) communities like yourselves. We have NOT NEGLECTED ANYTHING in the Book. Then to their Lord they will be gathered. S. 6:38 Maulana Muhammad Ali

 

Shall I seek a judge other than Allah, when He it is Who has sent down to you the Book FULLY EXPLAINED? ... S. 6:114 M.M. Ali

 

The likeness of the life of the present is as the rain which We send down from the skies: by its mingling arises the produce of the earth- which provides food for men and animals: (It grows) till the earth is clad with its golden ornaments and is decked out (in beauty): the people to whom it belongs think they have all powers of disposal over it: There reaches it Our command by night or by day, and We make it like a harvest clean-mown, as if it had not flourished only the day before! Thus do We explain the Signs in detail for those who reflect. S. 10:24 Yusuf Ali

 

In their histories there is certainly a lesson for men of understanding. It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it and a distinct explanation of all things and a guide and a mercy to a people who believe. S. 12:111 Shakir

 

Ibn Kathir comments on the last of the above quoted verses:

 

<and a detailed explanation of everything> Meaning the allowed, the prohibited, the preferred and the disliked matters. The Qur'an deals with the acts of worship, the obligatory and recommended matters, forbids the unlawful and discourages from the disliked. The Qur'an contains major facts regarding the existence and about matters of the future in general terms or in detail. The Qur'an tells us about the Lord, the Exalted and Most Honored, and about His Names and Attributes and teaches us that Allah is glorified from being similar in any way to the creation. Hence, the Qur'an is...

 

<a guide and a mercy for the people who believe.> with which their hearts are directed from misguidance to guidance and from deviation to conformance, and with which they seek the mercy of the Lord of all creation in this life and on the Day of Return. We ask Allah the Most Great to make us among this group in the life of the present world and in the Hereafter, on the Day when those who are successful will have faces that radiate with light, while those whose faces are dark will end up with the losing deal. This is the end of the Tafsir of Surah Yusuf; and all the thanks and praises are due to Allah, and all our trust and reliance are on Him Alone. (Source)

 

Yet another verse of the Qur’an states:

 

... And thee [too, O Prophet,] have We brought forth to bear witness regarding those [whom thy message may have reached], inasmuch as We have bestowed from on high upon thee, step by step, this divine writ, TO MAKE EVERYTHING CLEAR, and to provide guidance and grace and a glad tiding unto all who have surrendered themselves to God. S. 16:89 Asad

 

M.M. Ali has an interesting note here:

 

89b. Brinkman says: "If the Qur'an explains everything and is a guidance, what need is there for the Sunnah?" ... (Source)

 

Ibn Kathir states:

 

<And We revealed the Book (the Qur'an) to you as an explanation of everything,> Ibn Mas`ud said: "[Allah] made it clear that in this Qur'an there is COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE AND ABOUT EVERYTHING." The Qur'an contains all kinds of beneficial knowledge, such as reports of what happened in the past, information about what is yet to come, what is lawful and unlawful, and what people need to know about their worldly affairs, their religion, their livelihood in this world, and their destiny in the Hereafter. (Source)

 

So, the problem we have is that THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE BIBLICAL WARS BEING PROHIBITED BY THE QURAN! Because the Quran is complete and mentions everything needed, if there is no prohibition against any previous Biblical practice, it is deemed fine by both Allah and Muhammad. As the crucifixion and “son of God” examples show, the Quran was very familiar with Biblical practices and theology hence, Allah found nothing wrong with the Biblical wars. Surah 2:190 referred to wars after some of Muhammad’s battle and wars thereafter. Muhammad mentioned nothing against the Biblical wars and killings. Since there are no Quranic injunction to impose Islamic teaching back on ancient Biblical teaching, as in the case of the crucifixion and others, then there is no way we can assume that the Biblical prophets committed any type of evil act. If so, God would’ve never been silent on it in the Quran. This clearly proves our point that Zaatari can’t speak against the Biblical wars with the Quran but can only resort to using a verse which at best prohibits the killing of women and children AFTER MUHAMMAD’S BATTLES. There were no prohibitions in place before hand, as in the case of drinking wine.

 

 

Muhammad was very familiar with the story of the Torah, which the Hadiths themselves prove:

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

 

The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah IN HEBREW AND THEY USED TO EXPLAIN IT IN ARABIC TO THE MUSLIMS. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136) Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12

 

And

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

 

The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Found also in Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 632 Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460

 

Muhammad obviously knew about the killing of the women and children but said nothing about it being wrong! What more do we need to state in this case proving that Zaatari’s argument of “terrorism” in the Bible is nothing more than the figment of his imagination! His own prophet and false god deemed it unnecessary to say anything specifically against the Bible and these wars.

 

Notice how Quenn assumes and makes a claim which is not backed by what he quotes! What a fool indeed, note how Quenn assumes that since the Jews explained the Torah in Arabic this then automatically means that they explained every single passage to the prophet Muhammad! Notice how Quenn also says Muhammad OBVIOUSLY knew, oh did he? Where is your proof, don’t give us your stupid assumptions and guesswork.

 

Response:

 

Does Zaatari recognize the implications of what he’s saying here? If he believes that the Jews only explained part of the Torah to Muhammad then how can Muhammad claim that the Quran is a verification of the Torah if he didn’t know certain parts of it?

 

"And BEFORE THIS WAS THE BOOK OF MOSES as a guide and a mercy: and THIS BOOK IS A VERIFICATION (OF IT) IN ARABIC TONGUE to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to the righteous." S. 46:12

 

How can you verify something you never had explained or read? This would mean that the Quran is false for claiming to verify a Torah, which Muhammad didn’t fully have explained to him!

 

This is all Quenn has folks, guess work, and assumptions, he keeps making claims that he does not back up. What Quenn has to show us is that the Jews explained the WHOLE Torah to the prophet Muhammad. All the hadiths show is that the Jews would explain the Torah in Arabic, the hadith doesn’t say they explained the whole Torah, indeed Quenn makes a lot of stupid assumptions.

 

Basically Zaatari is saying, “Just because the Torah was explained in Arabic” it doesn’t mean that “ALL THE TORAH WAS EXPLAINED IN ARABIC”! The problem for Zaatari is that the Hadith is very clear when only “part of something” is mentioned:

 

Narrated Kuraib:

 

Ibn 'Abbas said, "The Prophet slept till he snored and then prayed (or probably lay till his breath sounds were heard and then got up and prayed)." Ibn 'Abbas added: "I stayed overnight in the house of my aunt, Maimuna, the Prophet slept for a part of the night, (See Fateh-al-Bari page 249, Vol. 1), and late in the night, he got up and performed ablution from a hanging water skin, a light (perfect) ablution and stood up for the prayer. I, too, performed a similar ablution, then I went and stood on his left. He drew me to his right and prayed as much as Allah wished, and again lay and slept till his breath sounds were heard. Later on the Mua'dhdhin (callmaker for the prayer) came to him and informed him that it was time for Prayer. The Prophet went with him for the prayer without performing a new ablution." (Sufyan said to 'Amr that some people said, "The eyes of Allah's Apostle sleep but his heart does not sleep." 'Amr replied, "I heard 'Ubaid bin 'Umar saying that the dreams of Prophets were Divine Inspiration, and then he recited the verse: 'I (Abraham) see in a dream, (O my son) that I offer you in sacrifice (to Allah)." (37.102) (See Hadith No. 183) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 4, Number 140)

 

Narrated 'Imran:

 

Once we were traveling with the Prophet and we carried on traveling till the last part of the night and then we (halted at a place) and slept (deeply). There is nothing sweeter than sleep for a traveler in the last part of the night. So it was only the heat of the sun that made us to wake up and the first to wake up was so and so, then so and so and then so and so (the narrator 'Auf said that Abu Raja' had told him their names but he had forgotten them) and the fourth person to wake up was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab. And whenever the Prophet used to sleep, nobody would wake up him till he himself used to get up as we did not know what was happening (being revealed) to him in his sleep. So, 'Umar got up and saw the condition of the people, and he was a strict man, so he said, "Allahu Akbar" and raised his voice with Takbir, and kept on saying loudly till the Prophet got up because of it. When he got up, the people informed him about what had happened to them. He said, "There is no harm (or it will not be harmful). Depart!" So they departed from that place, and after covering some distance the Prophet stopped and asked for some water to perform the ablution. So he performed the ablution and the call for the prayer was pronounced and he led the people in prayer. After he finished from the prayer, he saw a man sitting aloof who had not prayed with the people. He asked, "O so and so! What has prevented you from praying with us?" He replied, "I am Junub and there is no water. " The Prophet said, "Perform Tayammum with (clean) earth and that is sufficient for you." … (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 340)

 

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri

 

Allah's Apostle forbade Ishtimal-As-Samma' (wrapping one's body with a garment so that one cannot raise its end or take one's hand out of it). He also forbade Al-Ihtiba' (sitting on buttocks with knees close to abdomen and feet apart with the hands circling the knees) while wrapping oneself with a single garment, without having a part of it over the private parts. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 363)

 

In these examples we find that the Islamic text are very clear when they’re referring to “part of something”. When it refers to a whole, the entire “something” is mentioned. Hence, in order for us to accept Zaatari’s assertion, the Torah must be spoken of as being “partly taught”. More evidence of this comes from the Quran:

 

And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, THE TORAH and the Gospel, And (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): 'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe; (I have come to you), TO ATTEST THE TORAH WHICH WAS BEFORE ME. And to make lawful to you PART OF WHAT WAS (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. S. 3:48-50

 

As you can clearly see, “THE TORAH” is mentioned as a whole and Jesus is seen as making lawful to the Children of Israel “PART OF WHAT WAS” forbidden to them after his advent. Hence, using Zaatarian thinking, this would make no sense because the Torah wouldn’t be the whole one but only some! In this example the Torah is seen as a whole and parts of it that were forbidden to the Jews were made lawful. The Islamic text clearly shows when it is referring to whole subjects and “parts” in reference to various situations. If Zaatari is claiming that “one must back up his claim with quotes” then he needs to show us in the hadith examples I presented where “THE WHOLE TORAH” wasn’t explained to Muhammad and his followers in Arabic. Since the texts mention nothing about pieces or some, Zaatari is left as we should say “without any evidence whatsoever”.

 

But what is most amusing is that Quenn is really blind, note what Quenn said:

 

His own prophet and false god deemed it unnecessary to say anything specifically against the Bible and these wars.

 

Notice Quenn says that the prophet Muhammad said nothing against these wars; this is assuming that he heard about it from the Jews which Quenn has not backed up, but for the sake of argument let us assume that the prophet Muhammad heard this story. Quenn is now arguing that the prophet Muhammad said nothing against the story meaning the story is correct, but here is true proof that Quenn is truly brain-dead since the hadith says:

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Apostle said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " Found also in Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 632 Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460

 

The prophet Muhammad told the Muslims do not believe in the book nor disbelieve in them but just say we believe in Allah and whatever he revealed to us! So if the prophet didn’t attack it it does not mean its true, as the prophet said DO NOT CONFIRM IT NOR DENY IT, just say we believe in what Allah has revealed. So therefore Quenn proves he is dumb by making such a claim since the hadith refutes him on that! NICE ONE QUENN!

 

Response:

 

Zaatari has made another self-refuting argument against himself. For example, if Muhammad told his followers not to believe NOR DISBELIEVE in what was being revealed to them, how can Zataari DISBELIEVE THE BIBLE on the basis of the biblical wars? How can he claim that he doesn’t believe this to be true when HE EXPLICITLY TOLD NOT TO DISBELIEVE? Also, the Jews were reading the Torah in Hebrew, a language foreign to Muhammad and his followers, and proceeded to interpret its meaning in Arabic; and believing that the Jews were not honest in their dealings with Muslims, Muhammad could not be certain of their honesty in correctly conveying the meaning of their Scripture.

 

In his commentary on Bukhari, Ayni affirms this when he states that the Muslims were unable to know whether or not the interpretations given by the People of the Book accorded with the Torah, suggesting that to confirm a lie or to deny the truth provokes the wrath of God. (Ernest Hahn, The Integrity of the Bible According to the Qur'an and the Hadith, p.30)

 

Hence, Muhammad’s decree to “neither disbelieve or believe” stemmed from a language barrier issue, not a theological issue as Zaatari would have us to believe. Zaatari proves that he is very ignorant of this Hadith in light of Islamic history! Muhammad’s command stemmed from a specific situation related to his own time, not previous Biblical theology and information. The Jews of his time used to try and trick him by inserting their own meaning to the Hebrew text. Hence, Muhammad wanted to avoid being wrong so he didn’t accept their explanations. Surah 4 illustrates this well:

 

"Seest thou not those unto whom a portion of the Scripture hath been given, how they purchase error, and seek to make you (Muslims) err from the right way? Allah knoweth best (who are) your enemies. Allah is sufficient as a Guardian, and Allah is sufficient as a Supporter. Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: 'We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not' and 'Listen to us!' distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: 'We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us' it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few. O ye unto whom the Scripture hath been given! Believe in what We have revealed confirming that which ye possess, before We destroy countenances so as to confound them, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers (of old time). The commandment of Allah is always executed." S. 4:44-47

 

Yusuf Ali comments on S. 4:44-47:

 

"... A trick of the Jews was to twist words and expressions, so as to ridicule the most solemn teachings of the Faith. Where they should have said, 'We hear and we obey,' they said aloud, 'We hear,' and whispered, 'We disobey.' Where they should have said respectfully, 'We hear,' they added in a whisper, 'What is not heard,' by way of ridicule. Where they claimed the attention of the Teacher, they used an ambiguous word apparently harmless, but their intention disrespectful." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 194, f. 565)

 

And,

 

"... 'Ra'ina' if used respectfully in the Arabic way, would have meant 'Please attend to us.' With the twist of their tongue, they suggested an insulting meaning, such as 'O thou that takest us to pasture!', OR IN HEBREW, 'Our bad one!'" (Ibid, f. 566)

 

Because Muhammad didn’t know Hebrew, he didn’t want the Jews twisting the message of the Torah as they did with passages of the Quran and the Arabic phrase “Ra’ina’”. This has nothing to do with disbelieving the Torah or the Biblical OT which existed before Islam. It only shows that Muslims of Muhammad’s time were taught not to trust the Jews who gave wrong interpretations to him and his followers. Zaatari is attempting to use a 6^th century language dispute to apply to all of the historical OT. This may sound good in Zaatarian logic but to those who’ve actually studied Islam, this makes no sense whatsoever!

 

 

So the fact that the prophet Muhammad didn’t speak against the Biblical wars (supposing he heard it) was because this was not his style nor his way of doing things, since he knew the Bible was corrupt he simply said we don’t confirm it nor disbelieve in it we just believe in what Allah has revealed.

 

However so if we see something in the Bible that flat out contradicts the Quran such as Jesus dying, then we can say the Bible is dead wrong there and correct them. And in this case of the Bible telling us about Moses killing women and children we can say the Bible is wrong since we have enough proof from the Quran showing us that the Bible distorted the claims of what really happened and what Moses really did.

 

Quennal Gale continues to rant some more but there is no need to respond to the other rants since he simply repeats himself yet again.

 

Isn’t it funny how Zaatarian misunderstanding leads us to conclude that Muhammad didn’t speak against these wars because he never heard of it! To bad this explanation doesn’t hold water. The decree to “neither believer or disbelieve” stemmed from a language issue not a theological one. The Jews used their language to make fun of Muhammad instead of actually knowing the facts; Zaatari assumes that this refers to Islam not accepting the Biblical teachings and stories. As the Quranic parable says:

 

Truth stands out clear from Error! S. 2:256

 

The truth is you can’t use a language matter from a 6^th century situation and try to apply it to a theological situation which it has no basis in referring to! This would be a major error! But then again Zaatari loves committing errors all in his rebuttals anyway!

 

 

Conclusion

 

We have clearly seen how illogical and silly Quennal Gale is, as we saw he could not refute any of the claims that we presented and that he was so short of answers that he only attempted to respond to 2 of the passages I had brought up from the Bible showing women and children being killed.

We also saw that Quennal Gale has absolutely nothing on the Quran or hadiths, he tried to bring some issues up to try and claim that the Quran preaches terrorism but he was shut down as he usually is.

 

In conclusion I say that the Quran is a great book with great rules of war, while the Bible is a book with no rules and that anything goes, I urge Christians to really examine the arguments by both sides, and by doing so one cannot escape the fact that Quennal Gale has made a complete fool of himself and has brought up the most laughable responses and the most distorted arguments.

 

Indeed may Allah guide us all.

 

Response:

 

Zaatari does a great job refuting himself with his shoddy research, lack of Islamic knowledge, and his inability to read counter arguments carefully and correctly. I not only responded to the two passages he presented but he failed to show us where “ALL PEOPLE” referred to “infants and children who weren’t able to fight” being left behind in a war. If Zaatari represents the guidance of Allah, then both him and Allah are very stupid to say the least!

 

 

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section