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
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
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
[???????? ???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ????](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
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
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
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
``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
[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
That is, a prophecy concerning
``the burden of
the cup of cursing to give
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
Obvious the violent battle mentioned
in Isaiah 13, is directed at the
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
We need to show him who exactly the inhabitants of
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
IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were
three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later
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
O ye who believe! The idolaters
only are unclean. So let them not come near the
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[????????
???????? ???? ????????? ????????? ????](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:
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[?????????? ??????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????
?????????? ??? ?????????](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
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
When the
men explored the
They came
back to Moses and Aaron and the whole Israelite community at Kadesh in the
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
Deuteronomy
Chapter 3
1-7
1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of
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
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?
Then:
IF
“ALL: DOESN’T REFER TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN BUT LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN FOR OTHERS:
Then:
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
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
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:
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:
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
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 corr