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.