Terrorism in the Quran or The Bible?

 

Responding to yet another failure of Saami Zaatari

 

(Round 4)

 

By Quennel Gale

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

My Response

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


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


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



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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:



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

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

 

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

 

Response:

 

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

 

My Response

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Notice that according to Zaatari’s very own words:

 

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

 

So using this logic we must ask Zaatari this:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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