Responding to yet another failed attempt by Quennal Gale? Hardly

Quennel Gale

Here is our response to Sami Zaatari’s second laughable article:

He bites the dust again

Part 2 (A)

By Sami Zaatari

Christian apologist Quennal Gale has come up with a counter response to my complete annihilation of his initial response. His latest response can be found here:

http://answer-islam.org/rebuttal_to_quennal_gale_1.html

Readers who wish to see my complete annihilation of his first response can read it on this link:

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

I suggest that readers go read my first response, so they can grasp the arguments that have been put forth, and what the debate is being cantered around. With that said, we now proceed to Quennal’s response.

Response:

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. Okay, with this being said, let’s expose him for all to see. First off, I find it amusing that Mr. Zaatari wants others to “grasp the arguments” when I showed in my response that he failed to do the very same thing. I don’t see how you can annihilate someone when you don’t even read what they write. As for annihilation, Mr. Zaatari needs to take a look at this link:

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

Anybody who has read Mr. Zaatari’s material obviously knows that he is very inexperience in writing sound articles on religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam. But enough of this, let’s proceed with responding to his so-called response:

He Wrote

Sami Zaatari has decided to respond to our initial article on the debate between him and Sam Shamoun, of http://answer-islam.org/www.answering-islam.org, on the issue of violence in both Christianity and Islam. In this follow up, we will focus on Mr. Zaatari’s response to my first article to see if he actually addressed my paper coherently as he tries to portray. He begins his article by saying:

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

Friend and fellow missionary of Sam Shamoun has decided to respond to one of my counter rebuttals, this missionary happens to be Quennal Gale. As we shall shortly see, much like his buddy Shamoun, Quennal fails to refute anything at all. in fact what is more amusing about this response is that it cant even be considered a response! The reason being is because Quennal hardly even addresses the main topic, which is the slaughter of women and children in the Bible in huge numbers, i.e. the Amakilites. All Quennal sets out to do is try and save face by trying to show that in Islam women and children are also killed etc. My responses on this specific topic can be found on these links:

http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

We now proceed to Quennal's complete failure in responding to anything I said.

Such rhetoric has become common place in Mr. Zaatari’s articles on http://answer-islam.org/www.answering-christianity.com. He usually claims that someone has always failed to respond to his material, particularly in the beginning. This sly tactic usually attempts to influence the reader against the person Mr. Zaatari is addressing before allowing them to actually read the information given by both sides.

My Response

Anyone reading the previous rebuttal of mine will clearly see you really failed to address anything I said. You did not even try to defend the massacres of women and children in your Bible, you simply brushed it aside. So yes, you did fail to address anything in your initial supposed response. Hopefully in this response of yours, you will be able to respond unlike last time. We shall await and see, me and the readers are very excited and anxious to see if you will do it. So common Quenn! Make us proud.

Response:

I do not find it strange where I failed to address anything, especially since Zaatari hasn’t given us a list of what I’ve missed nor has he shown why “I’m required to address him on “violence in the bible” in which the original debate is between him and Sam Shamoun Apparently Mr. Zaatari has a hard time realizing that “as a third party I can choose what I want to respond to on a pre-existing issue”. If Zaatari is so intent on worrying about me addressing a certain issue, then the above link should satisfy him sufficiently since he left it totally unanswered. But I’m not going to parade around like a child saying “you didn’t answer this link, you totally missed this and that”, like Zaatari.

He Wrote

According to Mr. Zaatari, my reason for not responding to his original article in full which is “the slaughter of women and children in the Bible”, is to save face. However, Mr. Zaatari actually has resorted to building a straw man argument, exposing his gross ignorance of my paper, while ignoring the purpose for my response. Let me reiterate again why I chose to respond the way I did:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM. According to Mr. Zaatari, such actions are wrong and contrary to Islam, even though we find many instances of children being killed in bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan which are predominately Muslim countries. The perpetrators even find ways to justify these actions and show no sympathy at all.

Now compare this to Mr. Zaatari’s straw man argument:

Quennal fails to refute anything at all. in fact what is more amusing about this response is that it cant even be considered a response! The reason being is because Quennal hardly even addresses the main topic, which is the slaughter of women and children in the Bible in huge numbers, i.e. the Amakilites.

My Response

As we shall shortly see, you trying to get yourself out of a whole by making this claim severely backfires against you, because it seems it is you who doesn’t even understand what you write in your articles. I will shortly be showing you why you must pay attention to what you write next time, but first I will post the rest of what you say.

Response:

First off, Zaatari, please learn how to spell. I think you mean, “you trying to get yourself out of a hole” instead of “whole”? Secondly Zaatari can hardly teach anyone to pay attention to an argument, since IF THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT ISN’T BETWEEN THE PERSON IN QUESTION THEY AREN’T NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO RESPOND TO THAT ARGUMENT.

He Wrote

It is obvious that Mr. Zaatari has a glaring reading incomprehension that stems from his lack of carefully reviewing my article. My purpose wasn’t to address the killing of women and children in the Bible, but to review Mr. Zaatari’s response about the same issue in Islam. These are two totally different topics just in case he hasn’t figured this out yet. If he wants to build his response by claiming that I’m saving face, then he needs to go back and review my article carefully to see what my original purpose truly was. As a third party, I can choose what aspects I want to focus on, since the original debate is between Mr. Zaatari and Mr. Shamoun. If I was originally debating Zaatari on this issue, then I could see his point. However, I only chose to focus on one aspect of this broad debate, and because he doesn’t have a legitimate response, Zaatari seeks to introduce red herrings instead of addressing what I said and my particular points.

My Response

Yes, you trying to save face now isn’t going to help you, because as we will see right now, you have the problem in reading not me. Here is what you said in your initial article:

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of

www.answering-christianity.com

dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

Note, you claim you are focusing on a debate between me and Shamoun, on the topic involving BOTH the Quran, AND the Bible. However so, you hardly ever touched on the Bible. So next time I suggest you comprehend what you say, you started your article by saying you will be focusing on the violence in the Quran AND the Bible. So thank you for shooting yourself in the foot. I suggest you don’t try and play a trick on your readers next time, but just admit you were trying to save face, since it will lesson the embarrassment on your part.

Response:

He Wrote

My Response

Yes, you trying to save face now isn’t going to help you, because as we will see right now, you have the problem in reading not me. Here is what you said in your initial article:

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

Response:

Notice how Zaatari only posts my comments out of context. Yes I am focusing on THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE IN BOTH THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN, however this issue has several phases linked to it:

1. Violence in the Bible.

2. Violence in the Quran.

3. Violence outside the Bible.

4. Violence outside the Quran.

As you can clearly see, dealing with the argument at hand, I CHOSE TO FOCUS ON #2 & #4 instead of 1 & 3. Hence, my issue was not to touch on the Bible in that particular article at all. Zaatari is too stupid to recognize this then it’s his problem not mine. How can I play a trick on the reader when I specifically mentioned:

Would you as the reader be tricked by this, especially when I state what my purpose was in THIS ENTIRE ISSUE? Zaatari obviously is aware of this and that is why he tries to save himself here:

Also Quennal Gale makes this statement:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM.

Quenn makes this statement AFTER he first says he will be focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible. He says immediately after I quote the killing of women and children in the Bible, go figure!

Response:

Okay, so I made this statement after “focusing on the issue of violence in the Quran and the Bible”. But let’s show you how Zaatari doesn’t understand English real well. Notice this:

Here WE WILL FOCUS ON THE ONGOING DEBATE between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran.

As you can see that my focus is on THE ONGOING DEBATE, WHICH CONSISTS OF ISSUES RELATING TO VIOLENCE IN BOTH THE QURAN AND THE BIBLE. Let’s state some of these issues again:

1. Violence in the Bible.

2. Violence in the Quran.

3. Violence outside the Bible.

4. Violence outside the Quran.

As you can clearly see the entire debate encompasses a number of issues (note that I only stated 4). Hence, since the debate is such a broad topic I must choose which specific issue I want to focus on first, which is what I expressly stated to the reader:

Our focus is to deal with the fact of WHETHER KILLING CHILDREN IS ALLOWED IN ISLAM

So logically if I would break this down it would look like this:

I want to focus on the debate topic of violence in both the Bible in the Quran by addressing the issue of whether the killing of children is allowed in Islam

Logical Conclusion: My intent is to focus on the issue of whether “killing children is allowed in Islam” in relation to the ongoing debate of “Violence in both the Bible and the Quran”.

Now let us use a Quranic example to show you how Zaatari and his fellow Muslims would harmonize certain statements in the Quran. The Quran says that Allah commanded the angels to worship Adam:

And when We said to the angels, 'Bow yourselves to Adam'; so they bowed themselves, save Iblis; he was one of the jinn, and committed ungodliness against his Lord's command. What, and do you take him and his seed to be your friends, apart from Me, and they an enemy to you? How evil is that exchange for the evildoers! S. 18:50 Shakir

The late Maulana Muhammad Ali wrote in his Quranic translation:

50a. Iblis is one of the jinn or the evil spirits, so it is an error to take him for an angel or a good spirit. The spirit of evil is always rebellious, and it is against this that man is warned, so that he should resist every evil tendency. ( 50a. Iblis is one of the jinn or the evil spirits, so it is an error to take him for an angel or a good spirit. The spirit of evil is always rebellious, and it is against this that man is warned, so that he should resist every evil tendency. (Source; underline emphasis ours)

Why then does Allah blame Iblis for not obeying a command directed to angels, not to the jinn, seeing that he isn't an angel? The following Muslim thinks he has the answer:

18. IBLIS - ANGEL OR JINN?

Question:

The Qur’an in several places says that Iblis was an angel, but in Surah Kahf it says that Iblis was a Jinn. Isn’t this a contradiction in the Qur’an?

Answer:

1. Incidence of Iblis and Angels mentioned in the Qur’an

The story of Adam and Iblis is mentioned in the Qur’an in various places in which Allah (swt) says, "We said to the angels bow down to Adam: and they bowed down: not so Iblis".

This is mentioned in:

Surah Al Baqarah chapter 2 verse 43
Surah Al ‘Araf chapter 7 verse 17
Surah Al Hijr chapter 15 verses 28-31
Surah Al Isra chapter 17 verse 61
Surah Ta Ha chapter 20 verse 116
Surah Sad chapter 38 verses 71-74

But in Surah Al Kahf chapter 18 verse 50 the Qur’an says:

"Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam." they bowed down except Iblis He was one of the Jinns."
[Al-Qur’an 18:50]

2. Arabic Rule Of Tagleeb

The English translation of the first part of the verse ‘We said to the angels bow down to Adam: they bowed down except Iblis’, gives us the impression that Iblis was an angel. The Qur’an was revealed in Arabic. In Arabic grammar there is a rule known as Tagleeb, according to which, if the majority is addressed, even the minority is included. If for example, I address a class containing 100 students of whom 99 are boys and one is a girl, and if I say in Arabic that the boys should stand up, it includes the girl as well. I need not mention her seperately.

Similarly in the Qur’an, when Allah addressed the angels, even Iblis was present, but it is not required that he be mentioned separately. Therefore according to that sentence Iblis may be an angel or may not be an angel, but we come to know from Surah Al Kahf chapter 18 verse 50 that Iblis was a Jinn. No where does the Qur’an say Iblis was an angel. Therefore there is no contradiction in the Qur’an. (Source) (Source)

The reason I appealed to this example is because in certain places Satan is mentioned as being one of the Jinn, particularly when God commanded the Angels to bow before Adam. However, Satan is punished for not bowing to Adam. Now should I argue that Satan “as an angel” disobeyed God or should I go along with the Quranic statement that “Satan was one of the jinn”? Obviously Zaatari would harmonize this and claim that Satan is one of the jinn instead of an angel. His purpose would be that you must read the entire Quran to see if it explains itself. Yet, Zaatari just can’t seem to fathom how I can only choose to focus on “THE DEBATE OF VIOLENCE IN THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN” by only discussing “the killing of women and children in Islam”, especially after I specified that this is the part that I chose to focus on in relation to the ONGING DEBATE BETWEEN HIM AND SHAMOUN.

Apparently it never occurred to Zaatari that when you read articles as a whole you can perceive a better understanding of what’s being discussed. But judging by the quickness of his response, Zaatari only thought about providing a real fast response so as to somehow show that he can address the refutations to his position. He didn’t even give me time to write my second part yet. LOL!!!

Note how hilarious this looks:

Here is a slight example of why we cannot compare the OT with the Quran when it comes down to wars:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

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

Now let us see what the Quran says:

004.075

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

Again, please see our position above at the beginning of this paper. Our focus is to deal with the fact of whether killing children is allowed in Islam.

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!!!!!!!

Response:

Notice that Zaatari calls these terror verses. What is this conclusion based off of? His own opinion! Didn’t I state that Zaatari has a bad habit of stating his opinion as fact and then arguing from this assumed stated fact as truth! Apparently Zaatari failed to realize that these terror verses, especially those from Deuteronomy, were inspired by Allah. Let me repost this from my previous paper with slight modifications:

So my book tells me to fight for oppressed women and children, Quenn's book tells him to kill the women and children:

Zaatari needs to be careful here because he is now stabbing himself with a double-edged sword. Claiming that the Bible is my book, while the Quran is his book goes against the very tenants OF HIS BOOK! Secondly, Zaatari is so desperate to prove that the books of Moses, the Torah (in which he has posted most of his verses from) is vile that he would dare slander a prophet of God by placing him on the level of uninspired Christians of today who often do misunderstand what they read from the Holy Bible. By so doing he has only managed to slander his false prophet and his false book which command him to say the following:

And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then ye will be rightly guided. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Nay, but (we follow) the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he was not of the idolaters. SAY (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which THE PROPHETS received from their Lord. WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANY OF THEM, and unto Him we have surrendered. S. 2:135-136 Pickthall

The apostle believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers; they all believe in Allah and His angels and His books AND HIS APOSTLES; WE MAKE NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY OF HIS APOSTLES; and they say: We hear and obey, our Lord! Thy forgiveness (do we crave), and to Thee is the eventual course. S. 2:285 Shakir

Zaatari has committed unbelief (kufr) by making a distinction between the prophets, Moses, Joshua and others, claiming that their teachings are vile, breaking the command of his god and prophet! If Zaatari’s belief were correct about the Bible, this would mean his god and his messenger were liars since they commanded Muslims to believe all messengers and prophets! Either that or both Muhammad and Allah were ignorant since they weren’t aware that the Hebrew prophets were false prophets or were mistaken. So I challenge Zaatari and his big mouth to:

Show me explicitly from the Quran where Allah specifically spoke against the killing of women and children in the OT.
Show me where the Quran says “THE PREVIOUS SCRIPTURES ARE WRONG FOR TEACHING THAT WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAN BE KILLED”. –Previous article.

As you can clearly see Zaatari is in very hot water since

He obviously doesn’t have any proof that Allah had a problem with these specific verses of the Bible.
Allah never told Muhammad or his followers that the “people of the book” were wrong for killing women and children.
He can’t give you one example of Muhammad rebuking Moses for his actions.

What more can I say on this? Why argue with someone who can’t even produce proof from his own religion to specifically reply to this very issue, which he so much cares about?

He Wrote

As for his links he gave as a response, Zaatari failed to mention to his readers that the points dealing with “the killing of women and children in Islam” were the very same points I addressed and refuted in my original paper. Instead of addressing them, he deemed it much easier to repost them without offering a counter response. From reviewing his response, Zaatari could only offer up general responses and avoid the fact that his own Islamic sources showed that “killing of children and women” was allowed by Muhammad under certain circumstances.

My Response

Now would you please be specific? Which links? Are you talking about these links:

http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_kill_innocents.htm
http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_killing_of_civilians.htm

If you are talking about these links, then I must correct you, you gave NO response to them whatsoever, and I even told you, you are free to contact both those writers, brother Karim, and brother Bassam responding back to them, in which they will be glad to refute you. Also, if you did supposedly respond to them in your initial response, then this shows what a bad response you gave since I missed them and didn’t realize you gave one!

Response:

What more evidence do we need to show you that Zaatari doesn’t read carefully! Why do I have to be more specific when these were the only links Zaatari posted in his paper? In fact Zaatari will later on address my response to these very links, while here he apparently seems to WONDER WHICH LINKS I’M TALKING ABOUT! Talk about confusion (or is it really deception masking itself as confusion?)!! As for giving no response, apparently Zaatari failed to highlight what I missed, so this wonderful revelation (no pun intended) has somewhat eluded him.

He Wrote

He Wrote

Here we will focus on an ongoing debate between Sam Shamoun of www.answering-islam.org and Sami Zaatari of www.answering-christianity.com dealing with the issue of violence in both the Bible in the Quran. Zaatari’s article can be found here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

Before we begin we must start by saying that we, unlike others, don’t have a problem with God bringing judgment upon unbelieving civilizations that refuse to adhere to his commands and his servants. We understand the clear fact that the Lord God is the all-merciful God who loves all of his creation but we also understand that this same God of mercy is also a God of justice. Modern civilization tries to impose its current thinking upon God in trying to say that he is vicious to unbelievers without failing to take in the context and scope of the particular situation.

My Response

It is quite amusing that Quennal brings up the argument of how modern society tries to impose current issues with the way God did things in the past. It seems when what modern society thinks will hurt his cause, then he will simply brush their opinion aside, yet when modern society has an argument against Islam he will happily jump on board that train and argue along with them. Such as the issue of Aisha, which we know is something that is strange only in today’s society, and something that is not practiced anymore. However so, we do know in the prophet Muhammad’s time, and even before and after his time, marrying girls at a young age was seen as something normal. In fact the prophet Muhammad's enemies did not even attack him for marrying Aisha, and also around Europe and Asia young girls would be married off, this was nothing perverted or ub normal.

However so, Quennal Gale would have no problem in attacking the prophet Muhammad for something which was okay and normal for his time, so hence this is clear double standards on Quennals part. In fact, here is my little challenge to Quennal Gale, bring me one logical argument against the Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha, not from a modernist point of view, but from the point of view of how society was in the time before, and after the prophet Muhammad. He will completely fail to bring anything to the table, but it will be amusing to see what he will say.

Actually what I’m about to show you will be anything but amusing to Mr. Zaatari, dealing with his prophet and his marriage to Aisha. Before I do this I must state that the reason I brought up the issue of modern society attempting to impose its thinking on biblical events is to illustrate how fallacious an argument of this nature can be. In a way it is sort of an “Argumentum ad novitatem” fallacy which can be defined as thus:

Argumentum ad novitatem

This is the opposite of the Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; it's the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.

"BeOS is a far better choice of operating system than OpenStep, as it has a much newer design." (Source)

My Response

Yes, you have no problem in arguing a modern approach to Aisha and the prophet Muhammad, yet in their time, and before their time, and just 100 years ago it was something normal and not bad.

The reason I have no problem using modern standards and approaches in relation to Muhammad's marriage to Aisha is because Muhammad is supposed to be the guide for all mankind IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME PERIOD. Hence, if he is the perfect model for all men then all of his practices would be wholesome for all generations. As this Muslim illustrated here:

A. Prophet Muhammad r was an inspired man with an extraordinary personality. He was gifted with mighty powers of imagination, elevation of mind, delicacy and refinement of feeling. His intellectual qualities were extra ordinary. He had a quick apprehension, a retentive memory, a vivid imagination and an inventive genius. Pure-hearted and beloved in his circle, he was of sweet and gentle disposition. He set a shining example to his people. His character was pure and stainless. The real cause of his many marriages at an old age was charity, and in order to protect the widows of his persecuted followers…

D. The Prophet r was endowed with great words of wisdom and teachings. The words that he uttered are not the words of an ordinary man. The Hâdîth , the body of transmitted actions and sayings of the Prophet r conveys precious information. The practical character of his teachings gave birth to the scientific spirit. His teachings are simple, comprehensive and original. They remained in their original purity. Everything in the teachings and postulates of Islâm is in its proper place. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other; nothing is superfluous and nothing is lacking with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. The dicta of the Prophet in all matters of law and religion were inspired and suggested by Allâh I , though expressed in his own words. Every word the Prophet r uttered was inspired by Providence divulging some hidden truths of human life and laying down some rules for its guidance on earth. The Prophet’s teaching of the oneness of God, His innumerable attributes, of His love and mercy to His creatures are unequaled by others. Character training is achieved through the well-established teachings of Islâm, the model behavior of the Prophet. All the teachings of the Prophet are simple and intelligible. The Prophet’s wisdom, being divinely inspired, is so important that the Muslims have been ordained not only to recite the Qur’ân but to recite the wisdom also. The Sunnah of the Prophet r became a standard of living which every Muslim should aspire to reach.

E. Prophet Muhammad r is the greatest educator of mankind. - http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad1.htm

So let me ask Zaatari this simple question. Is it because you are embarrassed by Muhammad marrying a 6 year old girl when he was in his 50s which explains why you try to argue the point of “Muhammad’s practice was normal for his time”? And in light of the fact that Muhammad is suppose to be a model for mankind whose Sunna all peoples need to emulate:

Do you think that it is okay to marry a 6 year old girl based on Muhammad's perfect example?
Do you think it is okay to have sex with them at the age of 9 since Muhammad did so who is the perfect example to follow?

Remember my dear reader, Muhammad’s actions were divinely inspired by Allah and he is the perfect role model for all Muslims. If Zaatari says no to both of these questions he will only be demonstrating that Muhammad does commit practices that were not acceptable by modern standards. The problem for Zaatari is that, “if your prophet is a model for all people of all times,” then his practices wouldn’t be considered shameful in any time period. Simple as that. Now let’s see if Zaatari is going to answer these questions.

He Wrote

Zaatari is arguing along this line of reasoning because he feels that many of the biblical wars are atrocious, which is obviously appealing to modern thinking, without failing to take into context of whether such was the case in ancient times. More on this later. The issue of “modern society and it’s relation to biblical wars” doesn’t hurt my cause whatsoever since ancient wars in the Bible must be judged in light of their historical context and regional practices. Whether Zaatari realizes this or not, he resorts to using this same thinking by judging Islam in light of its time and practice dealing with Muhammad’s beheading of young boys from various tribes. You will see this reasoning later on in this paper. So when it is beneficial to him Zaatari will claim that his religion must be judged in light of its historical climate and context, but the Bible which is even older than Islam must be judged according to how Zaatari thinks, which is obviously modern. Either way Zaatari is fighting a losing battle as well as contradicting himself.

My Response

Actually, in which century, and in which time period was it ever deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’. Are you that silly?

So Quennal really embarrasses himself here, even if I was living in those Biblical time, I would object to such atrocities, never in the history of mankind has it been something normal and okay to kill women and kids, unless you were some sick pagan, or in this case, a follower of Quenns God.

So note what Quenn is arguing, he is arguing in one point of history, it was okay to kill women and children, something completely normal and justifiable and not bad at all. Can this get any worse for him?

Response:

First off, instead of worrying about whether I’m silly or not Zaatari needs to provide some type of historical evidence to support his case, which he has failed to do thus far. All he did was quote Bible verses without doing any extensive research on those verses. Again it is obvious that Zaatari is arguing along the line of the fallacy known as:

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan." (Source)

In this instance Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:

“It is very sick to see the killing of women and children in the Bible, since such action is horrible”.

Don’t you see why this argument is fallacious? Zaatari proves what I’ve been saying all along when he claims:

Actually, in which century, and in which time period was it ever deemed acceptable to kill women and children? You trying to even argue along such a line as saying: ‘oh yah in the past, such as Biblical times, it was okay to kill women and children’. Are you that silly?

If this isn’t a logical fallacy then I don’t know what one is! Instead of showing where it wasn’t deemed acceptable in ancient times, Zaatari has to resort to criticizing me for not agreeing with his assessment of it being wrong. THE PROBLEM IS THAT HE HASN’T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT IN ANCIENT TIMES SUCH PRACTICES WERE EVEIL OR OUT OF THE ORDINARY! So where does Zaatari get his conclusion that “this is wrong”? FROM USING THE FALLACY OF “ARGUMENTUM AD MISCERICORDIAM”!

How can I be called silly for a practice Zaatari has yet to prove wrong according to standard practices and views held during the biblical period? Let’s show you a list of missing items in Zaatari’s argument:

He hasn’t shown anywhere in ancient history where such practices were deemed out of the ordinary.
He hasn’t provided a single document or statement showing that the ancients viewed these as atrocities!
He hasn’t even shown us where Muhammad and Allah viewed these wars as atrocities!

For all prractical purposes Zaatari has argued in the following manner:

Killing women and children is wrong because……. HE THINKS IT’S WRONG BASED ON HIS MODERN ASSESMENTS!

HENCE ZAATARI IS TRYING TO USE MODERN STANDARDS TO PROVE THAT THE BIBLE'S TEACHINGS ARE EVIL AND INTOLERANT! In light of this, an obvious question for Zaatari is:

WHY DIDN’T ALLAH PUNISH THE JEWS FOR THESE ACTIONS AND WHY DIDN’T ALLAH EXPRESSLY TELL MUHAMMAD THAT THESE ACTS WERE WRONG?

The answer is rather simple, neither Muhammad nor Allah viewed these actions as atrocities which would explain why such sensitive issues weren’t dealt with. Zaatari's "response" shows that he himself knows that he doesn’t have anything to concretely show that these biblical actions are atrocities other than “his own opinion”. Here are more of his comments:

Zaatari clearly has a problem with the position that AT ONE POINT IN TIME CERTAIN ACTIONS THAT WERE PERMITTED WERE THEN CANCELED OUT AT A LATER TIME. According to him this makes it worse for me. First off, for all of us sane people out here we obviously know that in the world certain issues relating to law, society, religion, etc. change and because of this factor certain commands and actions that were in use at a specific period will not be in use during later times. If Zaatari thinks this is worse then what does he have to say about the Quran?

And when We exchange a verse in the place of another verse and God knows very well what He is sending down -- they say, 'Thou art a mere forgerr!<' Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge. S. 16:101 Arberry

And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it; knowest thou not that God is powerful over everything? S. 2:106 Arberry

Renowned Muslim philologist and commentator Al-Zamakhshari stated in reference to Sura 2:106:

(As the occasion of the revelation of this verse) the following is related: The unbelievers had challenged the canceling of verses and said: 'Look at Muhammad, how he commands his companions to do something, and then forbids it to them and commands the opposite. He says something today and retracts it tomorrow.'

THEREUPON THIS VERSE CAME DOWN.

Instead of whatever verse We abrogate (nansakh), some read: whatever verse we allow (or cause) to be abrogated (nunsikh). ...

Or cast into oblivion (nansa'ha): Some read: or cause to be cast into oblivion (nunsiha or nunassiha). Others read this as if addressed specifically to the Messenger of God: or when you forget it (tansaha). Still others read: or when you are caused to forget it (tunsaha). 'Abd Allah (ibn 'Abbas) read: when we cause you to forget (nunsika) or to abrogate it (nansakkha). And Hudhaifa read: when we abrogate (nansakh) a verse or cause you to forget it (nunsikaha).

To abrogate a verse means that God removes (azala) it by putting another in its place. To cause a verse to be abrogated means that God gives the command that it be abrogated; that is, he commands Gabriel to set forth the verse as abrogated by announcing its cancellation. Deferring a verse means that God sets it aside (with the proclamation) and causes it to disappear without a substitute. To cause a verse to be cast into oblivion means that it no longer is preserved in the heart. The following is the meaning: Every verse is made to vanish whenever the well-being (maslaha) (of the community) requires that it be eliminated - either on the basis of the wording or the virtue of what is right, or on the basis of both these reasons together, either with or without substitute.

We bring a verse which is better for the servants (of God), that is, a verse through which one gains a greater benefit, or one which is equal to it in this respect.

God is powerful over everything: he is able to produce what is good, but also something which is even better or something which is equal in its goodness to the first. (Helmut Gätje, The Qur'an and its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], p. 58; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Clearly, Muhammad’s doctrine of abrogation was nothing more than his attempt of trying to explain away all his contradictions and inconsistencies. Muhammad needed to come up with an explanation for having changed his mind regarding certain issues which resulted in contradictions with what he had previously said about those same things. Now if Zaatari is so concerned about certain commands being applicable at one time but AT LATER TIMES NOT FOLLOWED THEN WHY IS HE A MUSLIM?

He Wrote

Secondly, Mr. Zaatari has failed to show how my case was hurt by the issue of “modern thinking and the bible”, he just merely stated this and ran away with it like this was an established fact. Hence, he begs the question, assuming what he has yet to prove on this issue. After arguing from his fallacious point, Zaatari now seeks to shift the argument in his favor, claiming that I’d use this reasoning against Muhammad in relation to his marriage to Aisha. As for responding to his challenge, I’d say to Mr. Zaatari that it isn’t hard at all and that I’ve already discussed this on my site. Here is my response to this very issue, dealing with his master, Osama Abdallah:

What is even more embarrassing for him is that Muhammad can’t be judged based on cultural standards of the Arabs alone:

"he does not speak out of low desires. It is not but inspiration which is inspired" (Q. 53:3-4). The ONLY DIFFERENCE between the Qur'an and the Hadith is that whereas the former was revealed directly through Gabriel with the very letters that are embodied from Allah, the latter was revealed without letters and words."(Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, P.2,3. )

"Thus, next to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH. 'Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).'" (Sahih Muslim, Introduction to English translation, P. ii. ) The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up." (Mishkat-ul-Masabih, the English translation, Book 1, the importance of the Qur'an and Hadith, P.5, Quoted from Malabudda Minhu, P.8 )

"A Muslim therefore stands in absolute need of a copy of the Qur'an AND A COPY OF THE HADITH for the guidance of his life" (ibid, P. 2,3.)

And,

"If ye do love Allah, FOLLOW ME: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." S. 3:31

My Response

What Quennal is essentially saying here is that the prophet is the perfect role model, and that we should follow him in the exact way he lived his life. First of all, Quennal Gale doesn’t seem to understand his points.

When Muslims say we should follow the example of the prophet, we do not mean exactly literally the same. For one, that is not possible, because the prophet was allowed to marry more than 4 wives, we aren’t.

Secondly, times have changed, specifically in the issue of the age of marriages these days. So unlike the times of the prophet, in this area we to can’t follow him in the exact way, since in today’s society the age of marriage has changed and girls get married in an older age etc.

It would be illogical to say to follow the prophet in every single way, because this cannot be, times change, so therefore there could be things the prophet did in his time, which we cannot do now, this is something logical. So hence it seems Quennal doesn’t even understand his points properly. When Muslims say the prophet is our example, he is, we should live up to his moral standards and so on, and be a good man like him. However at the same time, we do know it is impossible to follow the hadiths 100%, because times have changed, and the way you do something things have also changed. This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is.

Response:

I find it very amusing that Zaatari is claiming that I don’t understand my points. This is false for the Mishkat explicit claims that:

1. "Thus, next to the Holy Qur'an the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE HOLY PROPHET ARE AS BINDING ON THE BELIEVERS AS THE COMMANDMENTS OF ALLAH.

2. 'Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q.33:36).

Notice that a believer in Islam can’t follow his or her own choice when a matter is practiced or decided by Muhammad. That is why the Mishkat says:

The Hadith is to be FOLLOWED EXACTLY "for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up."

Now according to Zaatari, I don’t understand what I’m talking about since I mentioned that:

Muhammad’s command and practices must be followed exactly unless the Quran says something different.
That a Muslim can’t follow his or her own manner of thinking when an issue or matter was practiced or decided by Muhammad.

Secondly Zaatari’s weak excuse for using “Muhammad’s wives” as a defense doesn’t help him either since the Quran explicitly claims that his privilege to marry more than 4 women was for him alone. As you can see the Quran limits the number of wives that a Muslim can have to four:

If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. S. 4:3

On at least two occasions Muhammad forced certain men who had more than four wives to divorce some of them:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar

Ghaylan ibn Salamah ath-Thaqafi accepted Islam and that he had ten wives in the pre-Islamic period who accepted Islam along with him; so the Prophet (peace be upon him) told him to keep four and separate from the rest of them.

Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah transmitted it. (Al-Tirmidhi, Number 945 taken from the Alim CD-ROM Version)

Narrated Al-Harith ibn Qays al-Asadi

I embraced Islam while I had eight wives. So I mentioned it to the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Select four of them. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 12, Number 2233)

Yet Muhammad failed to live up to his own standards since he had more than 4 wives and didn’t treat them all fairly:

O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makkah) with thee; and any believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- THIS ONLY FOR THEE, and NOT FOR THE BELIEVERS (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All- Knowing, Most Forbearing. It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things. S. 33:50-52

Zaatari’s defense is going to backfire on him again since Muhammad was explicitly given this special command, but no where does Allah or Muhammad claim that only he could marry a 6 year old girl. To illustrate the fallacious nature of Zaatari’s argument note the following:

HE CLAIMS: Muhammad was given special command to marry more than 4 wives.

Evidence given: The Quran, Hadith other Islamic sources.

However,

HE CLAIMS: In light of the above, a Muslim doesn’t have to follow Muhammad's perfect example of marrying a girl 6 years of age (implying that this only applied to Muhammad).

Evidence given: None whatsoever since there is no support from the Quran, Hadith or other Islamic sources for this position.

Conclusion: Zaatari has committed the fallacy of “begging the question” for assuming what he has yet to prove while also committing the fallacy of false analogy.

Zaatari has not given any evidence whatsoever for his desperate explanations. It is nothing more than the figment of his imagination. Even in today’s modern times, Muslims across the world still practice Muhammad’s perfect example as we illustrate here:

By Stephen Buckley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 13, 1997; Page A01

KORHOGO, Ivory Coast—The griots are wailing.

They howl into a squealing microphone as fellow storytellers, in a storm of sunflower golds and indigos and teals and cornflower blues, dip, leap, shake, stomp, twirl and shudder in fierce ecstatic dancing.

It is just after noon, and inside, in a steamy square room no larger than a prison cell, Aisha Camara is covered in a pink-and-white striped blanket. She briefly lifts a veil that hides her angular features. The griots and her neighbors are celebrating her wedding day, but she is not smiling.

She is 14 years old, and in this town in northern Ivory Coast, and throughout sub-Saharan Africa, such ceremonies are common. It does not matter that in numerous countries on this continent, such early marriages have been illegal for years.

Aisha's family will not publicly discuss this tradition, but people in her community eagerly defend it. People such as Boubacar Maiga, a neighbor who did not attend Aisha's wedding, say forcing girls to marry at such ages protects them from immorality, strengthens clan relationships AND HONORS ISLAM.

"If a girl doesn't marry at an early age, she'll sleep with many men. Nobody would want to marry her later," said Maiga, 55. Such marriages, he said, keep girls from "adventures."

He married his first wife when she was 11. He forced his oldest daughter to marry last year when she was 12. His next daughter, age 7, is scheduled to wed next year. Constance Yai, a prominent women's rights activist in this West African country, sees only tyranny in the tradition. Her battle to eradicate childhood marriage is for her a struggle between an oppressive Africa tied blindly to traditions versus one urgently seeking to embrace the modern world.

"Pedophilia is a phrase that's only recently become popular in the developed world," she said in her office in Abidjan, Ivory Coast's capital. "But in Africa, it's been around a long time."

The practice of forcing girls into marriage took hold decades ago throughout sub-Saharan Africa and is especially widespread in countries there WITH LARGE MUSLIM POPULATIONS.

The marriages typically occur within clans, the girl compelled to wed a distant relative—often two or three times her age—who sometimes has chosen her long before puberty.

Experts on Islamic law say the Koran does teach that a girl can be married as soon as she can conceive, but they say the religion does not condone forcing girls into wedlock.

Sociologists and teachers of Islamic law say that West African Muslims have accepted the tradition because it ostensibly promotes social stability, cementing ties between clans and preventing promiscuity.

Activists and medical professionals say pre-adolescent marriage is partly responsible for Africa's maternal mortality rates, among the highest in the world. Yai says it is not unusual for both mother and child to die during birth.

Yai said that "often the girls are pulled from school and forced to drop their education and become a wife overnight. These young women cannot turn to anyone to say no or to seek help." The real reason the practice has prevailed, she said, is that families often receive hundreds, even thousands of dollars as dowry. "It is what keeps this practice alive," she said.

But the practice has come under increasing assault since last year, when a then-12-year-old named Fanta Keita killed her 30-year-old husband. (Washington Post.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/africanlives/ivory/ivory.htm emphasis ours)

As you can see, Muslim scholars and experts say that Islam allows a girl to be married as early as she can first conceive! Both sociologists and Islamic law teachers have accepted this tradition for they believe it promotes stability in their community! The problem for Zaatari is obvious:

WHERE DID ALLAH OR MUHAMMAD PROHIBIT MARRYING YOUNG GIRLS, OR SAID THAT ONLY MUHAMMAD WAS ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILD BRIDES?

Zaatari was able to easily find such an example when it came to the prophet only being allowed to marry more than 4 wives while other believers were forbidden! Yet he tries to use this same assumption in the case of Aisha when no such tradition against such marriages can be found in the Islamic corpus! Zaatari is obviously fighting with nothing in his hand. Experts in Islamic law, which Zaatari obviously isn’t, allow these marriages BASING THEIR PROOF ON THE QURAN, HADITH AND SUNNAH OF MUHAMMAD! Yet Zaatari, in trying to appeal to the western reader, tries to claim that such marriages are not permitted in Islam and that I’m the one that actually misunderstood the issues at hand! Give me a break!

CHALLENGE TO ZAATARI:

If I am misunderstanding this issue, please show me in the Quran and Sunnah where Muhammad’s marriage to the 6-year-old Aisha applied to him ONLY. Don’t give us excuses, just facts.

What makes this even more amusing is that Zaatari actually winds up contradicting himself. Earlier he said:

So note what Quenn is arguing, he is arguing IN ONE POINT OF HISTORY, it was okay to kill women and children, something completely normal and justifiable and not bad at all. Can this get any worse for him?

This clearly illustrates that Zaatari is against me using the argument that for that the Biblical wars were acceptable in light of its historical and cultural contexts, even though they may not deemed acceptable today, but then ends up using this very same type of argument to justify Muhammad's molesting a young girl!

It would be illogical to say to follow the prophet in every single way, because this cannot be, TIMES CHANGE, so therefore THERE COULD BE THINGS THE PROPHET DID IN HIS TIME, WHICH WE CANNOT DO NOW, this is something logical. So hence it seems Quennal doesn’t even understand his points properly.

So while it is wrong to argue this way in seeking to understanding the Bible's teaching on warfare, IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO USE THIS ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY MUHAMMAD BANGING A 9 YEAR OLD GIRL!! Zaatari himself states it better than we could:

However at the same time, we do know it is impossible to follow the hadiths 100%, because TIMES HAVE CHANGED, and the way YOU DO SOMETHING things have also changed. This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is.

Based on Zaatari’s own statements

When times change you as a person have to change and so do your practices, and this is neither a sin nor a crime.

He is explicitly claiming that ancient practices such as Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha aren’t necessarily crimes or sins just because times and people's thinking have changed today. And yet he conveniently ignores this line of reasoning when it comes to the Holy Bible's teachings:

Notice that I was chastised for saying that, “we must judge cultural events in light of their ancient culture”. I was even called silly!! Yet Zaatari claims that because times have changed in reference to the Hadith and Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha that:

This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is.

Hence, since the Bible is thousands of years older than Islam and Muhammad we can claim that in reference to the killing of women and children that, in Zaatari’s own words:

This is not a sin, nor a crime; this is just how it is.

Zaatari has so obviously embarrassed for being so inconsistent and a hypocrite that no amount of verbal gymnastics is going to help him. It is an obvious contradiction to say:

Muhammad cultural practices, like marrying Aisha is ok

But then claim:

It is wrong to justify the Bible's command to kill women and children since it was cultural acceptable at that time.

Zaatari has done the job for us and refuted himself, without us needing to even write anything more on this issue. But for the fun of it and for the readers' enjoyment, we’ll continue.

He Wrote

According to the Quran and Hadith, Muhammad is the perfect role model for all mankind. These above quotes just give a hint into this. Now if we are to base his marriage to Aisha on cultural norms then he can’t be a role model for all since his action is particular to only one culture. What is even more detrimental to Islam is that science has shown that early sex with females is actually more detrimental to the girl:

"Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective."

Browning, Christopher R; Laumann, Edward O

Citation: American Sociological Review, v62n4, pp.540-560, Aug 1997

Number: 03374356 Features: Table; Illustration; References

"Research interest in the long-term effects of sexual contact between female children and adults has increased dramatically in the last two decades. Two sets of issues have driven this enhanced attention. The first concerns the nature and extent of the impact these experiences have on subsequent well-being in adulthood. Empirical research has offered evidence of the severe and wide ranging effects of adult-child sex by documenting its associations with a host of later "symptoms," such as low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, and sexual dysfunction."

"In each reduced model (Model 1), we see that adult-child sexual contact is significantly associated with the outcome considered. Women who experienced adult-child sexual contact were 1.6 times as likely to report sexual desire dysfunction, 2.1 times as likely to report sexual response dysfunction, 2.4 times as likely to report high dysfunction, 1.6 times as likely to report low overall well being, 1.7 times as likely to report low relationship satisfaction, and had more sexual activities that they found appealing compared with those who had no coupled sexual experiences as children. For every outcome except high dysfunction and number of sex acts found appealing, the introduction of the sexual trajectory variables (Models 2 and 3) renders the adult-child sexual contact coefficient insignificant, indicating that the effects of adult-child sex on adult outcomes are largely indirect, mediated through sexual trajectories."

Look what happens when you follow Muhammad’s example! Trying to hide behind cultural norm only shows that Osama can’t defend Muhammad’s vile actions. Since he loves science so much we wonder what will he say about this? Even the United Nations has shown that Muhammad’s perfect example is, well, not so perfect:

"HARMFUL TRADITIONAL PRACTICES AFFECTION THE HEALTH OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN"

"An appraisal of harmful traditional practices and their effects on women and the girl child.

Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; EARLY MARRIAGE; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them....

(NOTE: most of these are practiced by the Islamic world).

...Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents' home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed....

...Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing....

The work of the Committee has also permitted the identification of certain areas where law reform should be undertaken, in both civil and penal areas, such as the minimum age for marriage and establishment of the age of criminal responsibility as being the attainment of puberty. Some States have argued that girls attain their physical maturity earlier, but it is the view of the Committee that maturity cannot simply be identified with physical development when social and mental development are lacking and that, on the basis of such criteria, girls are considered adults before the law upon marriage, thus being deprived of the comprehensive protection ensured by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Conference on Population and Development, held at Cairo in September 1994 (see p. 36 below), encouraged Governments to raise the minimum age for marriage. In her preliminary report to the Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, also recognized that the age of marriage was a factor contributing to the violation of women's rights ...

Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother's own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women. ...

An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby's head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby's head out unduly....

Generally throughout the developing world, the average food intake of pregnant and lactating mothers is far below that of the average male. Cultural practices, including nutritional taboos, ensure that pregnant women are deprived of essential nutriments, and as a result they tend to suffer from iron and protein deficiencies...." - http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs23.htm UNITED NATIONS

Even if Osama tries to claim that is wrong to judge by modern standards, scientific standards have proven that no matter what time period, this early marriage to a young girl, following Muhammad’s example is detrimental to her health. So Muhammad’s perfect example, whether back then or now is still wrong based on scientific findings!!! Remember this next time when you see Muslims try and appeal to science to verify Islam. The Quran claims about Muhammad:

Surely in the Messenger of God you have a good example. 33:21

This is echoed by this Muslim site on Muhammad’s perfect example:

E. Prophet Muhammad r is the greatest educator of mankind. - http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad1.htm

So Allah’s good example is following cultural norms that are detrimental to your health! So according to Osama’s explanation since we must judge Muhammad based on his culture and nobody really found anything wrong with his marriage to Aisha, even though medical science proves other wise then:

1. Can we smoke cigarettes since it is a cultural norm and nobody says anything against it?

Did Muhammad's people and culture benefit from establishing this practice? No. Muhammad proclaimed himself as a guide and a light for his followers however millions of Muslim girls have been subjected to this harmful practice. Where was the light, guidance or wisdom in this practice? It was nothing more than a cultural practice, instituted by Muhammad as part of Islam then scientifically turns out to be destructive. But because it was good enough for Muhammad, it is good enough for Muslims; many of their female children suffer as a result? (Source)

Based on the Islamic texts and interpretation, Muhammad can be judged in light of modern standards since he is considered a model for all mankind! If his acts could only be judged in light of his cultural norm, Muslims today wouldn’t still be practicing his sunna on these very same issues! We’ve shown that sex at a young age is very detrimental to the young girl. Surely Allah and Muhammad must have known this since Allah is all knowing, and did not make any claim that “this is only a cultural practice and later generations need not follow it, etc.”. I wonder if Mr. Zaatari amused now?

My Response

As you becoming a doctor to show us it is bad to get married at a young age, Aisha lived and died an as an old lady in her time, and she loved the prophet and loved the marriage. So again you have no point, secondly, I am glad you became a scientist. Now since you are showing all the harm of young marriages, why don’t we show the harm of alcohol, which you’re Bible does NOT prohibit:

Response:

Zaatari is obviously unable to address this damaging evidence against Muhammad. Yes, medical science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s very bad to marry a young girl, contrary to Muhammad’s "perfect" example. However, Zaatari has resorted to the same thing he accuses us of doing throughout his paper, namely, failing to address the argument at hand. Let me repeat what Zaatari said earlier:

Now did he address anything at all about how the evidence of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was damaging to her medically?

No.

As you can clearly see, Zaatari brushed it aside by trying to argue that:

As you becoming a doctor to show us it is bad to get married at a young age, Aisha lived and died an as an old lady in her time, and she loved the prophet and loved the marriage.

Apparently Zaatari is ignorant of the fact that just because Aisha lived to be 50 years old DOESN’T INVALIDATE THE FACT THAT IT IS MEDICALLY DAMAGING TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A GIRL AT SUCH A YOUNG AGE. Crack heads live to old age every day, does it mean because they lived long and loved crack THAT THIS THEREFORE SOMEHOW PROVES THAT CRACK IS NOT DAMAGING? NO! Zaatari wants me to address the extremely broad issue of violence in the Bible, but he can’t even answer a couple of paragraphs dealing with the marriage of his prophet to Aisha! In his words:

you simply brushed it aside

So we can conclude on this particular issue, which Zaatari challenged us in his counter response to present evidence regarding our claims, with his own words:

So yes, you did fail to address anything in your initial supposed response.

Since Zaatari is so good at annihilating people in his great rebuttals we would like him to tell us:

How does Aisha living to be an old lady constitute as medical proof of any sort?
How does Aisha loving Muhammad constitute as medical evidence of any sort?

I’m sure Dr. Zaatari can somehow answer this for us. I would hate to visit this guy for a medical exam. If you break your leg Zaatari MD would probably tell you to love somebody and live long and it just might heal itself! Now that Zaatari has shown his complete inability to address this issue relating to Muhammad and Aisha, he found it much easier to attack the issue of “alcohol in the Bible”. As you will now see, his arguments regarding this issue are just laughable as the rest of his "answers":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5194258-103690,00.html

Excessive drinking causes brain damage in women more quickly than in men, according to a team of scientists.

The finding is especially worrying in the light of reports that binge drinking among women is soaring, according to the charity Alcohol Concern.

Scientists at the University of Heidelberg in Germany took brain scans of 158 volunteers, 76 of whom were alcoholic men and women. They found they could use the brain scans to trace the progression of alcohol dependency in women.

The scans also revealed that alcohol-induced brain damage could be picked up much earlier in women than men.

"The women developed equal brain-volume reductions as the men after a significantly shorter period of alcohol dependence," said Karl Mann, who led the study.

The study, which appears in the May issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, supports evidence that the harmful effects of alcohol differ between the sexes.

http://corp.aadac.com/for_women/the_basics_about_women/women_effects_alcohol.asp

Alcohol is often believed to be a stimulant, because it lowers inhibitions and impairs planning and judgment. But alcohol actually acts as a depressant on the central nervous system, slowing down brain functioning.

omen are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than men, and experience its harmful medical complications in a shorter period of time.

Women who drink heavily tend to develop liver or heart disease after fewer years of heavy drinking than men. (5, 11) These women also experience greater damage to their brain structure after fewer years of heavy drinking than men who are heavy drinkers. (11)

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)

Consumption of as many as four drinks per day increases the risk of stroke among women. (5)

Higher levels of alcohol consumption may have negative effects on a woman's menstrual cycle. She may have more painful, heavy, or irregular periods as a result. (5, 8, 14)

Heavy alcohol consumption may lead to the deterioration of female reproductive health. Ovarian wasting (shrinkage) or abnormal function, endometriosis (cysts outside the uterus), infertility and sexual dysfunction have all been observed in alcoholic women. (5, 8, 14)

Effects during pregnancy

Drinking while pregnant may harm the developing fetus. Much research is being done, but to date there is still no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women. Most doctors and researchers believe it is safest not to drink while pregnant.

It is unclear whether a child's health problems are caused solely by a mother's use of alcohol during pregnancy or in combination with other factors including

* poor nutritional habits

* smoking

* other drug consumption

* use of more than one drug

* lack of sleep

* a mother's general health prior to pregnancy

* genetics

* how much alcohol, tobacco or other drugs are consumed during pregnancy

* at what stage in the pregnancy the substance is consumed

* the length of time the substance is consumed

The effects of alcohol have been difficult to study because these other factors also have an impact on the pregnancy. Until more is known about the specific effects of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, it is safest to avoid using them while pregnant.

Any harm done to the fetus as a result of drinking during pregnancy cannot be reversed, but reducing or eliminating alcohol intake at any time during pregnancy is healthiest for the fetus. (10) It's never too late to quit or cut down on drinking.

Effects during birth

Pregnant women who consume 10 or more drinks per week, or one to two drinks per day, are at higher risk of premature labour and delivery than women who rarely drink. (13)

Use of alcohol during pregnancy has been related to miscarriage or stillbirth. (6, 7)

Even one drink per day is associated with intrauterine growth restriction (the fetus not growing at a normal rate) and reduced birth weight. (7, 13)

Effects on breastfeeding

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that mothers who consume alcoholic beverages infrequently should breasted their children. However, breastfeeding is not recommended for women who regularly consume more than a moderate amount of alcohol (more than two drinks per day). (15)

A nursing mother who consumes alcohol tends to produce less milk. (16)

The infant may feed more frequently, but ingests less milk. (4)

Infants who are regularly exposed to alcohol in their mother's breast milk may have more difficulty in learning to co-ordinate their movement, and in developing their mental abilities. (6, 16) In addition, infants tend to have less restful sleep and sleep for shorter periods of time after consuming breast milk containing alcohol. (16)

Effects on child development

Effects on early development

Short-term effects at birth may include withdrawal symptoms such as sleeplessness, irritability, diarrhea, vomiting, breathing problems, seizures and lack of sucking during breastfeeding. (1)

A growing fetus ingests alcohol when alcohol passes from the mother through the placenta. Because the liver of the fetus is underdeveloped, it cannot break down the alcohol as quickly as a fully developed liver can. As a result, the fetus is exposed to alcohol for longer periods of time, and developing organs may be harmed by this long-term exposure. (18)

Moderate alcohol use during pregnancy has been linked to developmental and behavioral difficulties in infants. (6)

Effects on long-term development

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), partial fetal alcohol syndrome (p-FAS), fetal alcohol effects (FAE), alcohol-related neurodevelopment disorder (ARND) and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBD) are all terms used to describe the physical and/or mental difficulties a child exposed to alcohol before being born may experience. These difficulties do not go away or change -- they last a lifetime.

Health Canada states that heavier drinking like binge drinking (consuming five drinks or more per occasion) or frequent drinking (consuming seven or more drinks per week) during pregnancy is linked to both FAS and FAE. (10)

Physically, alcohol-exposed children may exhibit problems with co-ordination, movement, vision and hearing, and/or have birth defects that may include

* bone and muscle deformities

* heart defects

* other deformities of the face or head

* kidney and organ problems (9)

Children exposed to alcohol before birth (even in light to moderate amounts) may have intellectual, behavioral, emotional or social problems that persist throughout their entire lives. These alcohol-exposed individuals may have

* mental handicaps (9)

* problems with learning, memory and problem solving (2, 17)

* poor judgment or failure to consider consequences (12)

* destructive, aggressive, inattentive, nervous or overactive behaviors (12)

* trouble with the law (12)

* a tendency to develop their own alcohol and other drug problems (3)

There is no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women.

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Alcohol

What are its short-term effects?

the effects of moderate alcohol intake include dizziness and talkativeness; the immediate effects of a larger amount of alcohol include slurred speech, disturbed sleep, nausea, and vomiting. Alcohol, even at low doses, significantly impairs the judgment and coordination required to drive a car safely. Low to moderate doses of alcohol can also increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse. Hangovers are another possible effect after large amounts of alcohol are consumed; a hangover consists of headache, nausea, thirst, dizziness, and fatigue.

What are its long-term effects?

Prolonged, heavy use of alcohol can lead to addiction (alcoholism). Sudden cessation of long term, extensive alcohol intake is likely to produce withdrawal symptoms, including severe anxiety, tremors, hallucinations and convulsions. Long-term effects of consuming large quantities of alcohol, especially when combined with poor nutrition, can lead to permanent damage to vital organs such as the brain and liver. In addition, mothers who drink alcohol during pregnancy may give birth to infants with fetal alcohol syndrome. These infants may suffer from mental retardation and other irreversible physical abnormalities. In addition, research indicates that children of alcoholic parents are at greater risk than other children of becoming alcoholics.

http://www.alcohol-addiction.org/

UNDERSTANDING ALCOHOL ADDICTION

Alcohol is known to man as one of the oldest addictions there is.

The University of Amsterdam and the Leiden University conducted a study in 2002 and concluded that a person’s ability to function normally is effected after even one drink.

Alcohol addiction is a road of destruction for an individual suffering through alcohol addiction.

TWO PROBLEMS, ONE ADDICTION.

This is not a mysterious brain disease. People begin drinking to solve some perceived problem or problems in his or her life and before they realize it there’s a dependency and an addiction. Alcohol dependence and addiction originates from the continued use of alcohol to combat the perceived problems. Either a physical and/or an emotional dependence causes addiction.

By the time reality kicks in the alcohol addiction is a greater problem than the original problem or problems the alcohol was suppose to solve.

Now the result is there are two problems for the person to deal with: Number one is the possibly forgotten original problem and number two is the new found alcoholism to contend with.

ONE SOLUTION SOLVES BOTH PROBLEMS WITH TREMENDOUS SUCCESS!

Getting someone to stop drinking is not a simple matter of someone having self-control or self-discipline as many people think. Only one of the problems is a persons ability to quit drinking but the combination of the original problem that started the drinking and the added problem within the addiction to stop drinking makes the endeavor seem impossible.

Overcoming these real life problems with real life solutions is an essential component to a successful rehabilitation. The right tools and life skills to surpass common barriers encountered by people on a daily basis are necessary for beating the addiction long-term. In order for those suffering through any type of addiction they must be able to apply these tools to their every day lives consistently.

For an alcoholic to become a happy, healthy, and productive member of society both the drinking problem and the underlying reasons for it have to be solved.

So if young girls get married which causes harm makes the prophet Muhammad a false prophet, then your Bible is also a false book since alcohol causes more damage, and your Bible doesn’t prohibit it. So Quenn, why doesn’t your Bible prohibit alcohol? Lest Quenn claims I am on a red-herring, he is the one who became a doctor with me, so I became a doctor with him.

Response:

Zaatari never ceases to amaze me. If you look at his quotes and highlight what they are saying, you will actually find out that it is SUPPORTING THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT ALCOHOL WHICH IS BAD, BUT EXCESSIVE MISUSE OF IT THAT IS WRONG! Let’s show you some examples from his own quotes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5194258-103690,00.html

EXCESSIVE DRINKING causes brain damage in women more quickly than in men, according to a team of scientists.

The finding is especially worrying in the light of reports that BINGE DRINKING among women is soaring, according to the charity Alcohol Concern.

The scans also revealed that alcohol-induced brain damage could be picked up much earlier in women than men.

"The women developed equal brain-volume reductions as the men after a significantly shorter period of alcohol dependence," said Karl Mann, who led the study.

The study, which appears in the May issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, supports evidence that the harmful effects of alcohol differ between the sexes.

Notice here that his quote doesn’t say that “alcohol causes brain damage but that “EXCESSIVE DRINKING” causes serious medical problems! It is known that alcohol is harmful WHEN IT IS USED EXCESSIVELY. But so is medicine such as aspirin, cough medicine, penicillin, and HONEY, WHICH CAN ROT A PERSON’S TEETH! Zaatari may ask why I mentioned ‘honey’. The reason is because Muhammad advocated it as a remedy!

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

(The Prophet said), "Healing is in three things: A gulp of honey, cupping, and branding with fire (cauterizing)." But I forbid my followers to use (cauterization) branding with fire." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 584: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.584)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said, "Healing is in three things: cupping, a gulp of honey or cauterization, (branding with fire) but I forbid my followers to use cauterization (branding with fire)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 585: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.585)

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

A man came to the Prophet and said, "My brother has some abdominal trouble." The Prophet said to him "Let him drink honey." The man came for the second time and the Prophet said to him, 'Let him drink honey." He came for the third time and the Prophet said, "Let him drink honey." He returned again and said, "I have done that ' The Prophet then said, "Allah has said the truth, but your brother's abdomen has told a lie. Let him drink honey." So he made him drink honey and he was cured. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 588: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.588)

Narrated Abu Said:

A man came to the Prophet and said, "My brother has got loose motions." The Prophet said, "Let him drink honey." The man again (came) and said, "I made him drink (honey) but that made him worse." The Prophet said, "Allah has said the Truth, and the abdomen of your brother has told a lie." (See Hadith No. 88) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 614: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/071.sbt.html#007.071.614)

Here are some more quotes from Zaatari's own sources:

http://corp.aadac.com/for_women/the_basics_about_women/women_effects_alcohol.asp

omen are more sensitive to the effects of alcohol than men, and experience its harmful medical complications in a shorter period of time.

Women who drink heavily tend to develop liver or heart disease after fewer years of heavy drinking than men. (5, 11) These women also experience greater damage to their brain structure after fewer years of heavy drinking than men who are heavy drinkers. (11)

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)

Consumption of as many as four drinks per day increases the risk of stroke among women. (5)

Higher levels of alcohol consumption may have negative effects on a woman's menstrual cycle. She may have more painful, heavy, or irregular periods as a result. (5, 8, 14)

Heavy alcohol consumption may lead to the deterioration of female reproductive health. Ovarian wasting (shrinkage) or abnormal function, endometriosis (cysts outside the uterus), infertility and sexual dysfunction have all been observed in alcoholic women. (5, 8, 14)

Effects during pregnancy

It is unclear whether a child's health problems are caused solely by a mother's use of alcohol during pregnancy or in combination with other factors including

* poor nutritional habits

* smoking

* other drug consumption

* use of more than one drug

* lack of sleep

* a mother's general health prior to pregnancy

* genetics

* how much alcohol, tobacco or other drugs are consumed during pregnancy

* at what stage in the pregnancy the substance is consumed

* the length of time the substance is consumed

The effects of alcohol have been difficult to study because these other factors also have an impact on the pregnancy. Until more is known about the specific effects of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, it is safest to avoid using them while pregnant.

Effects during birth

Pregnant women who consume 10 or more drinks per week, or one to two drinks per day, are at higher risk of premature labour and delivery THAN WOMEN WHO RARELY DRINK. (13)

Use of alcohol during pregnancy has been related to miscarriage or stillbirth. (6, 7)

Even one drink per day is associated with intrauterine growth restriction (the fetus not growing at a normal rate) and reduced birth weight. (7, 13)

Effects on breastfeeding

A nursing mother who consumes alcohol tends to produce less milk. (16)

The infant may feed more frequently, but ingests less milk. (4)

Effects on child development

Effects on early development

Short-term effects at birth may include withdrawal symptoms such as sleeplessness, irritability, diarrhea, vomiting, breathing problems, seizures and lack of sucking during breastfeeding. (1)

Moderate alcohol use during pregnancy has been linked to developmental and behavioral difficulties in infants. (6)

Effects on long-term development

Physically, alcohol-exposed children may exhibit problems with co-ordination, movement, vision and hearing, and/or have birth defects that may include

* bone and muscle deformities

* heart defects

* other deformities of the face or head

* kidney and organ problems (9)

* mental handicaps (9)

* problems with learning, memory and problem solving (2, 17)

* poor judgment or failure to consider consequences (12)

* destructive, aggressive, inattentive, nervous or overactive behaviors (12)

* trouble with the law (12)

* a tendency to develop their own alcohol and other drug problems (3)

There is no known safe level of alcohol consumption for pregnant women.

From this source we find out that:

Women who drink heavily tend to develop liver or heart disease after fewer years of heavy drinking than men.

Higher levels of alcohol consumption may have negative effects on a woman's menstrual cycle. She may have more painful, heavy, or irregular periods as a result. (5, 8, 14)

(Notice that this is focusing on heavy drinking not moderate drinking)

As you can clearly see, this source focuses more on the effects of HEAVY DRINKING and how it harms the body. What is damaging for Zaatari is that none of his sources say that ALCOHOL SHOULD BE TOTALLY REJECTED. They know very well that alcohol in itself wouldn’t cause these conditions but MISUSE AND OVERUSE OF ALCOHOL. This is the equivalent of me saying that we should prohibit aspirin just because some people overdose and die from it! Wouldn’t that sound very foolish? Yes. The same can be said about this argument of Zaatari. What he also failed to look at carefully is this:

The effects of alcohol have been difficult to study because these other factors also have an impact on the pregnancy.

Pregnant women who consume 10 or more drinks per week, or one to two drinks per day, are at higher risk of premature labour and delivery THAN WOMEN WHO RARELY DRINK. (13)

Notice that alcohol in and of itself isn’t prohibited but that pregnancy problems occur in women who consume HIGH VOLUMES of alcohol. Hence, if Zaatari is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn’t prohibit alcohol, he has no case since it isn't alcohol in moderation that cause harmful effects on the body BUT EXCESSIVE ALCOHOLIC INTAKE THAT DOES! Zaatari’s own sources prove this by saying that women who drink alcohol moderately (notice that it doesn’t prohibit alcohol like Zaatari wants us to believe) can even breastfeed!

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that mothers WHO CONSUME ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES INFREQUENTLY SHOULD breasted their children. However, breastfeeding is not recommended for women who regularly consume more than a moderate amount of alcohol (more than two drinks per day). (15)

Now if alcohol itself is bad why can women still breastfeed without fear of harming their unborn baby? Because if they are consuming alcohol on a moderate level it doesn’t harm the child, which is why Zaatari's source says:

However, breastfeeding is not recommended for women who regularly consume more than a moderate amount of alcohol

Now is Zaatari trying to use this as evidence against the Bible since it doesn’t prohibit alcohol? If so then it severely backfires against him for medical science isn’t against the drinking of alcohol but the EXCESSIVE USE OF ALCOHOL. Medical science isn’t against the use of exercising but it is against EXCESSIVE EXERCISING, for this could cause damage to the body. Dear reader do you see how Zaatari’s points don’t make sense? He is obviously at a loss to address the issue of Muhammad and Aisha so he deemed it much easier to “brush it aside” and copy and paste these links in reference to the Bible, even when he doesn’t actually read them!

http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Alcohol

What are its short-term effects?

What are its long-term effects?

Alcohol must be used responsibly, much like medicine, and exercise. I’m sure if we exercise improperly

1. We wouldn’t have sound vision

2. We wouldn’t be able to drive cars with sound judgment since we will be exhausted and fall asleep behind the wheel.

3. We can vitally damage our organs and die because of exercising too much, etc.

Conclusion: Based on Zaatari’s logic (in reference to alcohol) we must prohibit exercise!!

http://www.alcohol-addiction.org/

UNDERSTANDING ALCOHOL ADDICTION

Alcohol is known to man as one of the oldest addictions there is.

The University of Amsterdam and the Leiden University conducted a study in 2002 and concluded that a person’s ability to function normally is effected after even one drink.

Alcohol addiction is a road of destruction for an individual suffering through alcohol addiction.

TWO PROBLEMS, ONE ADDICTION.

This is not a mysterious brain disease. People begin drinking to solve some perceived problem or problems in his or her life and before they realize it there’s a dependency and an addiction. Alcohol dependence and addiction originates from the continued use of alcohol to combat the perceived problems. Either a physical and/or an emotional dependence causes addiction.

By the time reality kicks in the alcohol addiction is a greater problem than the original problem or problems the alcohol was suppose to solve.

Now the result is there are two problems for the person to deal with: Number one is the possibly forgotten original problem and number two is the new found alcoholism to contend with.

ONE SOLUTION SOLVES BOTH PROBLEMS WITH TREMENDOUS SUCCESS!

For an alcoholic to become a happy, healthy, and productive member of society both the drinking problem and the underlying reasons for it have to be solved.

This source talks about alcohol addiction, not the total prohibition of alcohol! Alcohol addiction:

originates from the continued use of alcohol to combat the perceived problems. Either a physical and/or an emotional dependence causes addiction.

As you can see, alcohol addition isn’t the result of alcohol itself but the use of alcohol to eliminate an already existing problem in a person’s life. Hence, alcohol is the effect NOT THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. That is why Zaatari’s sources says that

For an alcoholic to become a happy, healthy, and productive member of society both the drinking problem and the underlying reasons for it have to be solved.

To have a happy life, you must not stop the alcohol but the underlying reason for it! Therefore we see no reason why the Bible should prohibit alcohol totally since many modern reliance on alcohol comes from either excessive drinking or reliance on excessive drinking to answer one’s problems. Before we continue let’s show you how Zaatari tries to hastily conclude this matter without carefully reading his sources:

Also none of his medical quotes proves anything neither, the practice of marrying at a young age was still something normal and widely practiced across the world, and in the middle-east as well. There was no sin, and no crime on the prophet for marrying Aisha, none of his enemies even attacked him for it.

Also since you tried to be funny, surely your God is all-knowing isn’t he, so why did he not ban alcohol when he knew all the problems it would cause? Oh well, it seems once again your God is not all-knowing and doesn’t really know much at all.

Response:

Now Zaatari is trying to pass off the Biblical God as not being his God since alcohol is the issue at hand. However, Zaatari couldn’t even give an answer to this verse here:

And argue not with the People of the Scripture unless it be in (a way) that is better, save with such of them as do wrong; and say: We believe IN THAT which hath been revealed unto us AND REVEALED UNTO YOU; our God and your God is One, and unto Him we surrender. S. 29:46

Do notice that according to his own book his God is suppose to be the very same God who revealed the Bible to the Jews and the Christians! Even in his second part response to me Zaatari tries to overcome this by saying:

My Response

Yes, the God who gave the TRUE Bible, and actually, call it by its correct name, which is the Gospel, not the Bible.

Zaatari’s statement is loaded with inaccuracies to say the least. If he believes that the TRUE BIBLE is called the Gospel, he eliminates the Torah as being the True Bible! Secondly where exactly did Allah say that the true Bible is called the Gospel in the Quran? What is embarrassing for Zaatari is that the Gospel also has episodes where alcohol is used as in the case of Jesus at the wedding in Cana:

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. WHEN THE WINE WAS GONE, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have NO MORE WINE." "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water THAT HAD BEEN TURNED INTO WINE. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him. John 2:1-11

This source comments on this episode:

The first miracle of Jesus took place in the village of Cana, in Galilee. Jesus, His Mother Mary, and His disciples were quests at a wedding. The wine supply ran out, and through the urging of His Mother, Jesus had six water pots filled to the brim with water. He then had the master of ceremonies taste the water that was now wine. The master of ceremonies then called the bridegroom over and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the quests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now". (Source)

Jesus' first miracle according to the true Bible, the Gospel (in Zaatari’s words), was turning water into wine! Zaatari can’t win for losing in this rebuttal! Even the Quran says that Jesus performed miracles by Allah’s leave! Shabbir Alley, noted Islamic apologist has this to say about Jesus:

Jesus in the Glorious Qur'an

Introduction

The Qur’an tells us a lot of wonderful things about Jesus. As a result, believers in the Qur’an love Jesus, honour him, and believe in him. In fact, NO MUSLIM CAN BE A MUSLIM unless he or she believes in Jesus, on whom be peace. (Source)

If Zaatari tries to deny Jesus based on him making wine out of water, he will no longer be considered an orthodox Muslim! Yet, Zaatari would be inadvertently slandering Jesus by claiming that alcohol is wrong even though Jesus permitted it! Zaatari thinks he has me by saying:

Yes, I am very amused, because using your logic, your Bible is not the word of God, since according to your criteria, something which may cause medical harm, and is practiced, then that person who practices it cannot be a prophet, so using that criteria, your Bible cannot be from God since it never prohibits alcohol which is something that causes so many problems. So thank you for indirectly stating your Bible is not the word of God, yes I am very amused!

Actually Zaatari’s conclusion doesn’t help him whatsoever on this issue! First off here is a list of things which can be harmful according to medical science but must not be prohibited in any circumstance:

Aspirin (If you use this excessively it will cause an overdose and kill you). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!
Physical Exercise (If you use this excessively it will cause you to die of exhaustion). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!
Computers (If you use this excessively it will cause eye loss and other eye problems). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!
Water (If you use this excessively it can lead to a condition known as water intoxication and to a related problem resulting from the dilution of sodium in the body, hyponatremia. –(Source)). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it!
Food (If you use this excessively it can lead to overweight health problems). According to Zaatari’s logic we should prohibit it.

So in Zaatari’s very own words:

Also since you tried to be funny, surely your God is all-knowing isn’t he, so why did he not ban alcohol when he knew all the problems it would cause? Oh well, it seems once again your God is not all-knowing and doesn’t really know much at all.

Since God knows EVERYTHING we must ask Zaatari do you believe that he should ban the 5 examples we gave above SINCE HE OBVIOUSLY WOULD KNOW HOW MANY PROBLEMS THEY CAN AND DO CAUSE? Zaatari is clearly arguing along the line that

Because Alcohol causes problems, it is bad and should be banned.

Needless to say that everything causes problems when used excessively! Zaatari can’t make excuses for eliminating other examples and focusing on alcohol alone for alcohol in moderation is no more dangerous than any of the 5 examples we gave above. Even if all of his examples mentioned excessive alcohol use as being bad, it would be no different than excessive aspirin, physical exercise, computer usage, food and water since they can be and are detrimental to a person’s health. Zaatari wants to know why God wouldn’t prohibit alcohol in biblical times. Here is the answer as given by Dr. Salvatore P. Lucia, professor of medicine at the University of California School of Medicine:

"Wine is the most ancient dietary beverage and the most important medicinal agent in continuous use throughout the history of mankind . . . . Actually, few other substances available to man have been as widely recommended for their curative powers as have wines" (Wine as Food and Medicine; pp. 5, 58).

Dr. Henry A. Rowe, M.D., has stated that a moderate amount of wine taken with a meal improves digestion and helps build up the blood. The Pasadena Medical Society says,

"Taken intelligently and with discretion, alcohol (in wine and other drinks) CAN PROLONG LIFE EXPECTANCY . . . . However, even temporary excess or prolonged overdrinking can lead to disaster."

Wine and other alcoholic beverages have their place and have been provided for us by God to utilize intelligently for our benefit. Hence, this is the reason why God wouldn’t prohibit alcohol totally for it’s danger isn’t in its substance but in its abuse much like aspirin. The Harvard School of Public Health concurs:

Throughout the 10,000 or so years that humans have been drinking fermented beverages, they've also been arguing about their merits and demerits. The debate still simmers today, with a lively back-and-forth over whether alcohol is good for you or bad for you.

It's safe to say that alcohol is BOTH A TONIC AND A POISON. The difference lies mostly in the dose. Moderate drinking seems TO BE GOOD FOR THE HEART AND CIRCULATORY SYSTEM, and probably protects against type 2 diabetes and gallstones. Heavy drinking is a major cause of preventable death in most countries. In the U.S., alcohol is implicated in about half of fatal traffic accidents.(1) Heavy drinking can damage the liver and heart, harm an unborn child, increase the chances of developing breast and some other cancers, contribute to depression and violence, and interfere with relationships.

Alcohol's two-faced nature shouldn't come as a surprise. The active ingredient in alcoholic beverages, a simple molecule called ethanol, affects the body in many different ways. It directly influences the stomach, brain, heart, gallbladder, and liver. It affects levels of lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides) and insulin in the blood, as well as inflammation and coagulation. It also alters mood, concentration, and coordination. (Alcohol; Harvard School of Public Health)

This is a perfect way to describe alcohol. It is both a tonic and a poison, but God’s use in the Bible is for its tonic affects. As the Harvard School of public health shows, alcohol becomes bad for you when you drink excessively! This is a medical fact and it applies to virtually anything humans use as we’ve shown in the 5 examples above. It would be totally foolish for God to prohibit alcohol if it is good for the heart and the blood system just to satisfy cynics like Zaatari who base their conclusions on IGNORANT HUMAN MISUSE OF ALCOHOL.

Hence, alcohol is bad because of someone misusing it and not because of the source itself. Money can be seen in the same way for it is used by all cultures and involved in almost every financial transaction. Yet money can be the cause of greed, murder and even disobedience to God. Should we claim that money is evil and wrong or would it be wise to say that a person’s greed and their use or misuse of money is wrong? The Harvard School of Public Health continues in describing the benefits of alcohol:

Possible Health Benefits of Alcohol

Cardiovascular Disease

More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes.(4) The effect is fairly consistent, corresponding to a 25-40% reduction in risk. Results of some of the largest of these are summarized in Table 1.
The connection between moderate drinking AND LOWER RISK OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE has been observed in men and women. It applies to people who do not apparently have heart disease. It also applies to those at high risk for having a heart attack or stroke or dying of cardiovascular disease - people with type 2 diabetes (5) and those with high blood pressure, angina (chest pain), a prior heart attack, or other forms of cardiovascular disease.(5-8)

The idea that moderate drinking protects against cardiovascular disease is biologically and scientifically plausible. Moderate amounts of alcohol raise levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL, or "good" cholesterol),(6) and higher HDL levels are associated with greater protection against heart disease. Moderate alcohol consumption has also been linked with beneficial changes in a variety of factors that influence blood clotting, such as tissue type plasminogen activator, fibrinogen, clotting factor VII, and von Willebrand factor.(6) Such changes would tend to prevent the formation of small blood clots that can block arteries in the heart, neck, and brain, THE ULTIMATE CAUSE OF MANY HEART ATTACKS AND THE MOST COMMON KIND OF STROKE.

Does alcohol cause these benefits?

People who drink in moderation are different from non-drinkers or heavy drinkers in ways that could influence health and disease. Part of a national 1985 health interview survey showed that moderate drinkers were more likely than non-drinkers or heavy drinkers to be at a healthy weight, to get 7-8 hours of sleep a night, and to exercise regularly.(7) Researchers have statistically accounted for such confounders, and they do not come close to accounting for the relationship between alcohol and heart disease. This, plus the clearly beneficial effects of alcohol on cardiovascular risk factors, makes a compelling case that alcohol itself, when used in moderation, reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The most definitive way to investigate the effect of alcohol on cardiovascular disease would be with a large trial in which some volunteers were randomly assigned to have one or more alcoholic drinks a day and others had drinks that looked, tasted, and smelled like alcohol but were actually alcohol-free. Such a trial will probably never be done. Nevertheless, the connection between moderate drinking and cardiovascular disease almost certainly represents a cause-and-effect relationship.

Beyond the Heart

The benefits of moderate drinking aren't limited to the heart. In both the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, gallstones and type 2 diabetes were less likely to occur in moderate drinkers than in nondrinkers. (11-13)

The social and psychological benefits of alcohol can't be ignored. A drink before a meal can improve digestion or offer a soothing respite at the end of a stressful day; the occasional drink with friends can be a social tonic. These physical and psychic effects may contribute to health and wellbeing. (Ibid)

God in his wisdom knew all of this in relation to alcohol and that is why he didn't totally prohibit its use in the Holy Bible. Zaatari would rather have people dying of diabetes, stress, blood clots, cardiovascular diseases and heart attacks just so people could follow his prophet’s example of total forbiddance! I always said that Islam was:

Ignorance

Stupidity

Lies

Associated with

Muhammad

Zaatari in his ignorance believes that alcohol should be totally forbidden because of the misuse of humans but he apparently didn’t know that God’s intended use for it was to have great medical benefits when used the proper way. If Zaatari tries to argue based on the deficiencies of alcohol he is clearly arguing based on the actions of particular people for the medical benefits have already been proven, much like the medical problems associated with banging child-brides ala Muhammad. The Harvard School of Public Health also describes the dark side of alcohol but we’ve already touched on this showing that anything in excess can be bad for humans. They do have this to say about alcohol:

If all drinkers limited themselves to a single drink a day, we probably WOULDN’T NEED AS MANY CARDIOLOGISTS, LIVER SPECIALISTS, MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELORS. But not everyone who likes to drink alcohol stops at just one. While most people drink in moderation, some don't. Problem drinking affects not just the drinkers themselves, but may touch their families, friends, and communities. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: (1) (Ibid)

Hence, God saw in his wisdom that people’s heart and blood related issues were more important to him than total prohibition of alcohol. Zaatari is obviously ignorant of these facts since he doesn’t care to study Christianity or medical history. Even if he tries to show where alcohol is bad, it is usually based on excessive usage since moderate usage in most instances helps the person. Even if there are exceptions, like in the case of milk which helps build bones and calcium and yet there are people who can’t drink it or are allergic to it, this does nothing to take away the health benefits of milk, the same can be said about alcohol. Thus, the Bible doesn’t prohibit alcohol because it has valuable medical benefits:

"No longer drink only water, but use a little wine FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR STOMACH AND YOUR FREQUENT AILMENTS." 1 Timothy 5:23

Yet it does prohibit its abuses:

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. (Romans 13:13)

Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. (Titus 1:7)

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1Timothy 3:2-3)

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. (1 Peter 4:3)

Drunkenness, not alcohol, is prohibited in the Bible! We have shown already that excessive use of alcohol is detrimental to the health of a person, WHICH IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN THE BIBLE! However, because alcohol has medical benefits relating to the heart and the blood system among other important factors, IT ISN’T PROHIBITED WHEN CONSUMED IN MODERATION.

If Zaatari is trying to argue that, “Alcohol should be prohibited because it causes drunkenness,” then

Aspirin should be prohibited since it can cause overdosing and dependency!
Physical Exercise should be prohibited since it can cause you to die of exhaustion or even heart failure!
Computers should be prohibited since it can cause you to loose your eyesight over time!
Water should be prohibited since it can cause related medical problems such as hyponatremia!
Food should be prohibited since it causes weight and health problems!

This source has this to say on the Bible and alcohol:

Intemperance was common enough, and the Bible contains a number of unfavorable references to excessive drinking. Wine is praised; it rejoices God and men (Judges 9:13); it gladdens the heart of men (Psalms 104:15); it gladdens life (Exodus 10:19); it makes the heart exult (Zechariah 10:7); it cheers the spirits of the depressed (Proverbs 31:6) . . . The attitude of Jesus toward wine, like that of the entire Bible, is neutral, praising its use and finding fault in its intemperate use. Certainly the production of wine at Cana (John 2:1-11) scarcely supports any belief that Jesus or the primitive Church regarded the use of wine as sinful in itself. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, S.J., Bruce Publishing Co., 1965 ).

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/chrdrink.html

Medical science has actually authenticated the Bible on this issue since God was right in saying that alcohol helps the heart while yet chastising those who overuse alcohol by excessively abusing it. Zaatari continues:

Again, you show you have no case on the prophet and Aisha, all you can do is quote sources saying the prophet is an example to follow, and you think you have achieved nothing. Maybe you did not also know this, but ALL prophets are an example to follow, so are you going to now attack the other prophets Quennal? If you are consistent then you must do so, since we Muslims believe that all prophets should be followed by example etc. So are you going to judge all the prophets in today’s modern thinking just because we say they are example to follow? Remember, these prophets include Abraham, Jesus, Noah etc.

Response:

Obviously Zaatari must convince himself that I have no case since my sources upon which his entire religion is based, namely the Sunnah and the Quran . Yet Zaatari doesn’t show how I don’t have a case other than just stating that I don't. If my case was nonexistent then Zaatari could have easily pointed out where I was wrong based on Islam itself. Instead:

He states that it is illogical to follow everything Muhammad said (based on his own opinion).
He states that I don’t have a case (though he doesn’t show how or why).
He claims that I must be consistent and not attack other prophets (even though he does the same thing with his attacks on Moses and Joshua by claiming that their writings are vile and violent).

So if Muslims believe in all the prophets then why is Zaatari claiming that when the prophets killed women and children, THEY WERE VIOLENT AND VILE AND NOT OF GOD? Also Zaatari is desperately looking for a way out by saying, “we shouldn’t judge the prophets by modern thinking”. When I said this he claimed I was silly and wrong but when he does the very same thing, it’s okay! The Million Dollar question Zaatari failed to answer is, “WHERE IS THE DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT THE BIBLICAL WARS WERE CONSIDERED VILE AND VIOLENT IN LIGHT OF THEIR ANCIENT CONTEXT”? Zaatari has not given us a single shred of evidence aside from quoting verses of the Bible and claming that, “oh yeah, these are violent”! If he is so honest about examining ancient prophets in light of their historical settings, then why is he claiming that the very wars they fought were violent and vile?

Also, Quennal and his Christians believe the prophet Muhammad is not a prophet just on the fact that he married Aisha at a young age, that is their main line of reasoning, ohhh how could he do it!!! That’s what they always say. As we see, Quennal has no real arguments against it, all he has is a modern approach to it. So again I ask Quennal, bring me ONE valid argument against the marriage of Muhammad to Aisha in his time. Just one, he cannot bring this, oh yes, he will say ohh it’s medically bad. If he does do that, then again, why doesn’t your Bible forbid marriage, and also why did Abraham marry his sister according to your Bible, which is medically very bad as well.

So Quenn, bring me one valid argument against the prophets marriage to Aisha. As we saw, you brought none. All you did was say ohh you say Muhammad should be followed by example; even this line of reasoning on your part didn’t cut it since you don’t even understand what it means.

Response:

Zaatari’s comments are so incoherent that they border on patheticism to say the least. First he claims that I have no real argument even though:

1. I presented medical evidence to document that having sex with young girls ala Muhammadan style was scientifically detrimental to the girl’s health.

My reasoning wasn’t “ohhh how could he do it!!!” as Zaatari tries to claim. As for applying modern research, well scientific and medical evidence is not based on whether it was found in ancient or modern times. It is based on truth:

"Sexual contact between children and adults: A life course perspective."

Browning, Christopher R; Laumann, Edward O

Citation: American Sociological Review, v62n4, pp.540-560, Aug 1997

Number: 03374356 Features: Table; Illustration; References

This is hardly “my modern assessment”, I am basing my conclusion ON SCIENCE AND MEDICAL RESEARCH! Zaatari is never going to accept any argument against Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha simply because he is a Muslim. Zaatari obviously knows that I can present medical research against his prophet so he says this:

Just one, he cannot bring this, oh yes, he will say ohh it’s medically bad. If he does do that, then again, why doesn’t your Bible forbid marriage, and also why did Abraham marry his sister according to your Bible, which is medically very bad as well.

Zaatari has obviously run out of answers. The Bible forbiding marriage has nothing to do with whether marrying a 6 year old girl is healthy or not. Zaatari’s original challenge was to present him with any type of evidence against Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. He didn’t ask me to present biblical reasons to prove my case. It seems like when he is cornered Zaatari has to brush aside the obvious. Notice his comments again:

Notice that

1. Zaatari brushed aside the medical evidence against Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. He didn’t even try to defend the fact that it was medically and scientifically detrimental to have sex with such a young girl. HE SIMPLY BRUSHED IT ASIDE AND CLAIMED THAT I DIDN’T PRESENT ANYTHING. SO YES HE FAILED TO ADDRESS ANYTHING IN HIS RESPONSE.

2. Zaatari had to attack the Bible on alcoholic issues even though he didn’t prove that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha wasn’t medically detrimental. Apparently it never occurred to Zaatari that if you try to prove others wrong it never refutes the fact that MUHAMMAD’S MARRIAGE TO A YOUNG GIRL IS STILL MEDICALLY DETRIMENTAL!

As FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT SOMETHING MEANS, I’VE ALREADY SHOWN THAT THE ISLAMIC EXPERTS PERMITTED MARRYING YOUNG GIRLS SINCE IT IS BASED ON ISLAM. Hence, Zaatari doesn’t understand his own religion!

He Wrote

He Wrote

Even in today’s modern society, many of those who accuse God of such vile actions, would themselves find certain actions justified. For example:

1. If a country is attacked by another country, retaliation is considered justified and usually necessary if possible.
2. One is usually not held accountable if they take someone’s life, out of the fear of being killed by that person.
3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid every time.

There are many more examples we can give but these will suffice for now. One issue we want to look at during this on going debate between both Mr. Shamoun and Mr. Zaatari is the issue of children being killed. We begin with Mr. Zaatari’s comments here: My Response

Quennal Gale tries to play a trick on the readers here, and he also manages to prove his Bible is a vile and violent book. Notice what he says:

3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid every time.

So note, Quennal Gale said that in war, killing of women is UNACCEPTABLE, and if they are killed, they should be kept to a minimum, such as collateral damage. Well there is a slight problem with that, in Quennals own book, the Bible, women and children were INTENTIONALLY slaughtered and killed, they weren’t killed as result of collateral damage. Here are the relevant passages:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

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

Deuteronomy
Chapter 3

1-7

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

Joshua
Chapter 6

17-27

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

So note, women and children being killed in the Bible is not as a result of collateral damage, but they are intentionally killed with the sword. So Quennal's own point backfires against him.

In reality I’ve done nothing in proving that the Bible is a violent and vile book, as Mr. Zaatari claimed. It’s very apparent that he is so desperate to defend Islam that he forgets to read my points carefully. Zaatari is so confused that he thinks that “up is down” and “down is up”. Let’s show you where he made a blundering error:

First he says:

So note, Quennal Gale said that in war, killing of women is UNACCEPTABLE, and if they are killed, they should be kept to a minimum, such as collateral damage. Well there is a slight problem with that, in Quennals own book, the Bible, women and children were INTENTIONALLY slaughtered and killed, they weren’t killed as result of collateral damage.

But I said:

3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid every time.

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, while my point is strictly saying:

1. 1. Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum.

2. 2. Is impossible to avoid (the killing of women and children) all the time.

Zaatari also ignored my statements before my third point since I also mentioned at the beginning of my article that:

Didn’t I say that God brings justice upon people and nations (even though it may seem unacceptable to some, like Zaatari) and that this same God of mercy is also just? Yes. Zaatari’s obvious problem in his attempt to paint this as being “vile and violent” is that he is committing this same “Argumentum ad novitatem” fallacy mentioned at the beginning of this article.

My Response

Now it seems Quennal doesn’t understand what he says, he further shows how silly he is, and he further shows what a filthy book his Bible is. Note what he says:

while my point is strictly saying:

3. 3. 3. Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum.

4. 4. 4. Is impossible to avoid (the killing of women and children) all the time.

Like his previous article, he is trying to trick his readers again. Note he says killing women and children is okay if its kept to a minimum, and if you cannot avoid them. I can accept part 4, since sometimes you cannot avoid killing children in battle, and you do set out to battle to kill men and not children. However so, Quennal completely misses the point AGAIN. He even quotes the terror verses I showed, and doesn’t seem to understand what they say! His Bible is saying something completely opposite to what he is. We will put Quenns words and the Bibles passages together so all can see how Quenn and his Bible are not in agreement:

Is this supposed to be a response? Zaatari is so confused and incapable of addressing my material to such a point that he ends up contradicting himself.

Like his previous article, he is trying to trick his readers again. Note he says killing women and children is okay if its kept to a minimum, and if you cannot avoid them.

Contradicts

However so, Quennal completely misses the point AGAIN. He even quotes the terror verses I showed, and doesn’t seem to understand what they say! His Bible is saying something completely opposite to what he is.

If I don’t understand the verses in question, why did I talk about them in relation to the killing of women and children? Isn’t that what Zaatari’s entire argument is about? Yes. Hence, he is contradicting himself by believing that my comments on women and children being killed in the Bible IS SAYING THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE BIBLE IS REFERRING TO, WHICH WOULD LOGICALLY MEAN THAT THERE WOULD BE NO KILLING OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN! in other words, if the Bible says the opposite of what I said then it would clearly mean that nobody would be killed! If the Bible shows people being killed THEN IT ISN’T SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I’M SAYING NOW IS IT? Zaatari is so intent on trying to prove that I’ve tricked someone that he doesn't realize that he actually ends up confusing and embarrassing himself and committing gross blunders and contradictions!

The un-holy Bible:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 2

32-37

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

Quenn:

Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum

So does anyone else see the problem here? Quenns Bible does not keep the killing of women and children to a minimum, in the Bible ALL women and children are killed!!!!!!!! Each one of them were killed as we saw, so hence Quenn is putting a smoke-screen, and is trying to put this nice picture of his Bible, which is failing big time. Unless Quenn is dumb enough to say ‘oh all those women and kids were killed by mistake’. It would be really entertaining if he actually did say that.

Response:

Zaatari thinks he has a slam dunk argument with this passage. However he doesn’t tell you the reason why the Hebrews wiped out Sihon:

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

Sihon initiated the war with the Hebrews and brought all his people to fight at the location of Jahaz. Hence, the Israelites wiped them out in the battle! Zaatari is classifying a general war text as a passage condoning terror! People being killed in a war somehow ends up being terror to Zaatari, even though he stresses that the beheading of all the young boys of Banu Qurayzah was justified because they fought against Muhammad!

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

If we analyze Zaatari’s argument it can be broken down like this:

1. He believes that it was okay for Muhammad to behead young boys because they broke the treaty with the Muslims.

2. Any boy who passed puberty was considered an enemy combatant NOT BECAUSE OF WAR BUT BECAUSE OF THE TREATY BEING BROKEN.

In the case of the Hebrews, THEY WERE ATTACKED FIRST BY SIHON IN THE BATTLEFIELD! Hence the children and women that were killed were done so in a war responsive to Sihon’s aggression! Zaatari may try to claim that all the people of Sihon weren’t in battle but let’s bring back his comments again:

Each one of them were killed as we saw, so hence Quenn is putting a smoke-screen, and is trying to put this nice picture of his Bible, which is failing big time. Unless Quenn is dumb enough to say ‘oh all those women and kids were killed by mistake’. It would be really entertaining if he actually did say that.

Hence, Zaatari already believes that ALL WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN THE BATTLE. However this is going to work against him since the passage mentions that:

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

Hence, all the people killed were AS A RESULT OF A DIRECT HEAD TO HEAD BATTLE! This is justified by Zaatari’s very own criteria. How much worse is it to have an entire civilization come to fight you as opposed to a treaty among a small group of Arab barbaric tribes and the Jews in Arabia?

Also as for me not being able to read English, this is what I said in my last rebuttal, right after Quenns response, as we will see; this missionary is trying to deceive all his readers, and is doing a very bad job. Lest Quenn starts to claim that I am being rude, this will silence him:

Quenn said:

3. In war, the killing of women and children, although unacceptable, is usually tolerated if kept to a minimum since collateral damage is impossible to avoid every time.

Now maybe this missionary will be able to understand his words. Note he says killing of women is unacceptable, but it would be tolerated IF THE KILLING IF KEPT TO A MINIMUM. As we see, in his Bible the killing was NOT kept to a minimum, ALL the women and children were killed. Hence this action CANNOT be tolerated. So Quenn has to eat his own words.

Response:

In this biblical passage the killing of women and children WAS IN THE BATTLEFIELD SINCE:

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

This action is very much tolerated since, in the words of Zaatari, PEOPLE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU IN A WAR ARE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS. Clearly it is Zaatari who is eating his words not me. If he is against this passage in the Bible why is he then making excuses for Muhammad beheading the men of the Jewish tribe? Particularly when all they did was break a treaty, while the ancient Hebrews were in an all out war!!

So my initial comment stands, thanks to you, you called your Bible vile and violent book. So I say to you, I suggest you go learn English rather than telling me, since you are making a fool out of yourself. And if you get offended by this harsh tone on you, then so be it, you have been exposed as a liar, hence you deserve this. Again here it is for all to see:

while my point is strictly saying:

5. 5. 5. Killing of women and children (whether intentional or not) is usually accepted if kept to a minimum.

The Bible:

Response:

Actually Zaatari’s comments fall flat to the ground. The very passage he used shows the Hebrew people fighting the entire civilization of Sihon in an all out war. Hence, all of them would’ve been killed since Sihon lost this war to the Hebrews. How can I make a fool out of myself, when Zaatari considers people who fight in wars “enemy combatants”? The bible clearly says ALL OF SIHON CAME TO FIGHT THE HEBREWS, HENCE ALL THE WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF THIS CIVILIZATION WERE AT COMBAT READY AGE LEVELS. If there were small babies, the Bible would have mentioned them. Unless Zaatari, in his own words is trying to say that “ALL ISN’T EXACTY ALL”!

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

The evidence clearly shows that all of Sihon went to battle including the women and children, making them enemy combatants in a war against the Hebrews! No innocent women and babies were kil! led in this war since it wasn't “SOME FIGHTING BUT ALL”! So in the very words of Zaatari,

So keep making a fool out of yourself for everyone to see.

Zaatari has obviously made a fool out of himself. He is trying to argue that innocent women and children were killed when ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF SIHON WERE IN THE BATTLE FIGHTING WHICH, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CRITERIA, MADE THEM ENEMY COMBATANTS!!!

Also here is more proof of what a sad deception artist this man is, note what he says:

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

Note how this coward tries to trick his readers by saying inserting the word SOME, he is trying to trick his readers into thinking that SOME women and children were killed. Not only that, he is making a lie against me, my argument was never focused on SOME women and children being killed, my argument was focused on ALL women and children being killed, not a few here and there. So my question is, why did you just try to play a trick on everyone? Are you a coward to admit the fact that all women and children of several towns were slaughtered?

Response:

Zaatari has just strengthened our argument by using this passage. He strictly believes that

ALL women and children being killed, not a few here and there

The Bible clearly says:

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

And Zaatari says in reference to the Jewish tribe fighting Muhammad,

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

We We can therefore conclude that since all the people came and fought the Hebrews this made all of them enemy combatants, which therefore proves that THERE WAS NO CRIME OF KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN EVEN ACCORDING TO ZAATARI'S CRITERIA WHICH HE USED TO DEFEND MUHAMMAD'S ACTIONS AGAINST THE JEWISH TRIBE THAT BROKE THE TREATY WITH THE MUSLIMS!

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.

Response:

Well since Zaatari has clearly said:

Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME

How can he claim that SOME INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED WHEN THE PASSAGE MENTIONED THAT:

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

If all the people of Sihon came to fight, leaving no room for “some,” then how can Zaatari believe that INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED WHEN ALL OF THEM WERE FIGHTING IN THIS BATTLE? This would be a self-refuting contradiction! If all the people of Sihon were fighting the Hebrews then it clearly means that NO INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN THIS WAR! Hence, by his own words in trying to refute me, Zaatari has refuted his entire argument.

There is no innocent women and children killed in his passage because ALL THE PEOPLE WERE FIGHTING.
Since ALL refers to everybody, this leaves no room to argue that innocent people were killed.
People who do as little as break treaties (which occurs even before the war starts) are considered enemy combatants, then how much more a people WHO ACTUALLY FIGHT IN WARS!

Need we say more? No.

He Wrote

Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:

“Killing women and children is vile because such atrocities are considered wrong and typically by today’s standards”

My Response

Wrong, my argument is that killing women and children is wrong in whatever century you live in; you are so brain dead to have invented up this theory that in some time in history it was okay to murder women and children.

Response:

Again Zaatari is contradicting himself claiming that killing of women and children is wrong no matter what time you lived in. Now compare what he said about the Jewish tribe who had its boys beheaded:

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

Now if boys were considered men back then THIS WOULD MEAN THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES IT WAS OK TO KILL PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CHILDREN! Zaatari is trying to hide behind cultural norm to explain Muhammad’s actions saying that young boys were considered men, but he is trying to say against the bible that NO SUCH TOLERANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN! Logically if it is wrong to kill women and children NO MATTER WHAT CENTURY YOU LIVED IN, then logically Zaatari can’t argue that “boys were considered men who passed puberty”, since this is medically wrong! It’s call logic 101 Zaatari, try using it some time. Secondly, where has Zaatari shown that the Bible was wrong when it showed that women and children were killed in this passage? Particularly when THEY WERE CONSIDERED ENEMY COMBATANTS BY ZAATARI’S OWN STANDARDS AND COMMENTS IF THEY PARTICIPATED IN BATTLE?

Also let me elaborate, what I am mainly against is the massacre of women and children, being killed of by the sword, had God killed them by a natural disaster, I would have no arguments, however so the atrocities found in the Bible are no different than the atrocities we see being done around Africa, and many other parts of the world. Genocide is genocide, no other way to look around it.

Response:

Who cares what Zaatari is against. He isn’t God and his opinion doesn’t determine what God views as being right or wrong. If Zaatari believes that Deuteronomy 2 constitutes as an atrocity how can he then justify what Muhammad did to the Jewish tribe? If he says they fought the prophet then we must reiterate to him that:

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

Since, “ALL” means “EVERYBODY”, there is no room to claim that innocent women and children were killed since every last person WAS BUSY FIGHTING IN THIS WAR!

Also, it is funny to see Quennal Gale building up a straw man, he earlier claimed that I was building a straw man, when in fact he is doing it. What makes this even funnier is that I NEVER brought up the way modern society view things, Quenn did!

This whole debate started on these 2 articles, which were rebuttals to Shamoun:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm

No where in those two rebuttals do I bring the point of how would modern society would view those events.

Quennal Gale then later popped into this debate out of no where, and brought in the issue of what modern society would think off. So Quennal Gale really seems to be lost.

Response:

No, I mentioned that modern society has different views than ancients did and that Zaatari is arguing along the fallacy of “Argumentum ad novitatem”. Zaatari didn’t necessarily refute this, he only claimed that “killing children and women were considered wrong in any century”. Let us use Zaatari’s words against him yet again. In relation to Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha he says:

There was no sin, and no crime on the prophet for marrying Aisha, none of his enemies even attacked him for it.

Hence, Zaatari is basing Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha being right simply because none of Muhammad’s enemies attacked him on this issue. So where exactly did:

The ancient enemies of the Hebrews attack them for killing women and children in wars in their documents?

Remember in order to be proven incorrect Zaatari must bring us the above information and not just claim that “he believes something is terrorism”. He isn’t the ancient enemy of the Hebrews and HE IS A MODERN APOLOGIST TRYING TO BRING UP ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ANCIENT PEOPLE. So why didn’t anybody in the time of the OT bring up this same accusation that Zaatari mentions? According to his own criteria, the Bible would then be considered correct SINCE NONE OF ITS ANCIENT ENEMIES ATTACKED IT FOR THIS PRACTICE.

I will even quote it for him, here you go Quenn, it was you who brought up the issue of what modern society thinks, NOT ME. :

Before we begin we must start by saying that we, unlike others, don’t have a problem with God bringing judgment upon unbelieving civilizations that refuse to adhere to his commands and his servants. We understand the clear fact that the Lord God is the all-merciful God who loves all of his creation but we also understand that this same God of mercy is also a God of justice. Modern civilization tries to impose its current thinking upon God in trying to say that he is vicious to unbelievers without failing to take in the context and scope of the particular situation.

So my friend, it was you who started this argument on modern society. My argument is based upon the fact that women and children were slaughtered by barbarians.

Response:

Zaatari obviously can’t be serious with this response. In reference to modern society I was saying that

Modern civilization tries to impose its current thinking upon God in trying to say that he is vicious to unbelievers without failing to take in the context and scope of the particular situation.

The problem for Zaatari is that he is arguing the same way he accuses me of doing!

Now if Zaatari claims that he isn’t arguing along modern standards then why is he mentioning that it is impossible to follow all of Muhammad’s examples since TIMES HAVE CHANGED AND THAT PEOPLE ALSO CHANGE WITH TIME?

Also finally, who said that those slaughtering of women and children cannot be followed by modern day Christians? Where is this law specifically forbidden and is sin? As far as I know, the NT tells me that the OT is useful and must be followed:

1- 1- 1- 2 Timothy 3:16 states:

¹⁶All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

So hence someone in todays modern time could follow the very same example found in the OT.

Response:

If Zaatari actually read the verse he posted, he would have found out that there was no slaughter of women and children. Note this again:

Quenn believes ALL is SOME, since when did ALL become SOME

How can he claim that SOME INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED WHEN THE PASSAGE STATED THAT:

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

If all the people of Sihon came to fight, with no room for “some,” how can Zaatari believe that INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE KILLED WHEN ALL OF THEM, NOT SOME OF THEM, WERE FIGHTING IN THIS BATTLE? This would be a self-refuting contradiction! If all the people of Sihon were fighting the Hebrews then it clearly means that NO INNOCENT PEOPLE WERE KILLED IN THIS WAR! Hence, by his own words in trying to refute me, Zaatari has refuted his entire argument.

There is no innocent women and children killed in this passage because ALL THE PEOPLE WERE FIGHTING.
Since ALL refers to everybody, this leaves no room for claming that innocent people were killed.
People who do as little as break treaties (which occurs even before the war starts) are considered enemy combatants, then how much more a people WHO ACTUALLY FIGHT IN WARS!

Because Zaatari believes that its okay to fight women and children who are enemy combatants in modern times then we can follow the OT on this issue. According to his own words women and children who are enemy combatants deserve to be punished.

He Wrote

Zaatari is trying to impose his modern assessment and opinion on God Almighty. If he claims that he isn’t then he must show us in the ancient time period where this wasn’t acceptable or in wide practice. Also the problem for Zaatari is that neither Muhammad nor Allah specifically points to any biblical war as an example to avoid. Why the silence? Since Zaatari has argued on many occasions (including later on in his response) that if Allah didn’t give specific instructions or prohibitions etc., then it wasn’t considered binding for or against someone or something. In this case, since there was no prohibition by Allah this indicates that neither he nor Muhammad saw anything wrong. Instead, modern propagandists like Zaatari are trying to impose their will and thinking on issues not prohibited or spoken against by Muhammad and Allah.

My Response

This is simply hilarious, I NEVER brought up the issue of modern society, and how we today view things, through out the ages it was always wrong to kill women and kids!!!!! Are you insane to be telling all of us that killing women and kids were okay in one point in history? Are you that stupid my friend? I hope not.

So all your doing now is blabbering, you have build a straw man and now your on a blind rampage arguing with yourself, since I never brought this point up.

Response:

Zaatari represents the essence of stupidity. If you point out a logical fallacy in a person’s argument, IT PROVES THAT THEY ARE ARGUING ALONG A CERTAIN LINE OF THINKING WHETHER THEY ARE CONSCIOUS OF IT OR NOT. If I said that:

There is no God because Atheists say there is no God

This would be considered a circular argument. How would it look if I said “I never brought up the issue of circular argument” EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROVEN THAT MY ARGUMENT WAS CIRCULAR? Stupid! This is how Zaatari actually sounds. Also Zaatari has failed to illustrate how I built a straw man argument. He just took what I said in my paper and then began using it because it sounded good to him. You don’t have to consciously bring a point up for this to manifest itself. If you believe that it is wrong to kill unborn babies, but then say that you didn’t bring up the issue of abortion, you would prove yourself of being a total fool. As for blind rampage, I’m not the one who don’t read what I post as in the case of here:

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

Who’s blind now?

He Wrote

Argumentum ad misericordiam

This is the Appeal to Pity, also known as Special Pleading. The fallacy is committed when someone appeals to pity for the sake of getting a conclusion accepted. For example:

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan." (Source)

In this instance Zaatari’s reasoning can clearly be illustrated like this:

“It is very sick to see the killing of women and children in the Bible, since such action is horrible”.

As you can clearly see, Zaatari’s line of arguing is not taking the nature or the context of the situations at hand in the Bible. This requires extensive historical research, time and effort to offer a proper conclusion. There are many passages in the Bible that may seem awkward on the surface but it’s not “what to read, but knowing what you’re reading” to determine the proper conclusion. In relation to Christianity, Zaatari is suddenly trying to play pacifist pretending to be horrified at such killings but in Islam, it is justified because the party either was disobedient to Allah, etc. I am the first to say that God isn’t a pacifist but in no ways does it make his judgment vile!

My Response

So what you’re saying is that it was okay to kill women and kids in your Bible? How nice of you, no matter how much research you do, it will never be able to defend the vile actions of the OT where women and kids were killed off by the sword, like sheep. You trying to justify shows how sick and demented you are, and I would never leave any kids around you, since it’s obvious if you were given the right circumstance and reason, you would kill that kid. That is what you are saying at the end of the day.

In Islam the prophet forbade the killing of women and children, hence you have no point.

Response:

Again Zaatari does nothing to address my point. He just rattles off at me being demented and trying to justify the OT, which he calls vile but here is one specific point, he chose to ignore:

As you can clearly see, Zaatari’s line of arguing is not taking the nature or the context of the situations at hand in the Bible. This requires extensive historical research, time and effort to offer a proper conclusion.

So my question to Zaatari is:

1. Where is your evidence that these actions were considered vile in light of the ancient historical setting which these events took place?

How can you call something vile and violent when you haven’t presented any outside evidence from any culture or any enemies of the Hebrews as evidence to support your case? Even the verse you used demonstrated that all of Sihon fought the Hebrews which made them enemy combatants by Zaatari's own standards! So would you leave kids around yourself who are trying to attack and kill you Zaatari? That is what Deuteronomy 2 is clearly showing when it said that:

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

He Wrote

1. 1. 1.
The Bible allows you to kill children and women so this is vile and violent.

But what is this conclusion based on?

2. 2. 2. He doesn’t tell us specifically.

3. 3. 3.

4. 4. 4.

5. 5. 5.

My Response

Quennal wants to play dumb now, or maybe he isn’t playing? Note what he says again:

2. 2. 2. The Bible allows you to kill children and women so this is vile and violent.

But what is this conclusion based on?

6. 6. 6. He doesn’t tell us specifically.

I don’t tell you specifically? Maybe you are blind; my conclusion is based on your Bible! I have been quoting all these verses from your Bible which shows that women and children were killed and it was okay and even commanded! So hence my conclusion is on your Bible, if you claim that this is only the OT. Then show me where it is forbidden to follow these rules in the OT, show me where it’s specifically disallowed to kill women and children in war.

Response:

Actually Zaatari’s conclusion is based on his assessment of the Holy Bible. Zaatari basically picked out some verses which shows women and children being killed in war and concluded that THESE VERSES WERE VILE AND VIOLENT. He has yet to show us how did he arrive at the conclusion that it was vile and violent. Zaatari has done nothing more than offered up his own opinion as a matter of fact on certain biblical verses he copied and pasted. Zaatari has also issued another challenge:

Then show me where it is forbidden to follow these rules in the OT, show me where it’s specifically disallowed to kill women and children in war.

It has become apparent that even if you answer Zaatari’s challenge he is just going to say that “we didn’t prove anything" and then go off and issue another challenge. Look at his challenge dealing with Muhammad and Aisha again:

In fact, here is my little challenge to Quennal Gale, bring me one logical argument against the Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha, not from a modernist point of view, but from the point of view of how society was in the time before, and after the prophet Muhammad.

Zaatari isn’t interest in giving an honest challenge. If you notice that in his comments he asked for:

1. A logical argument against Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. This would mean that any logical answer is valid. Notice in my response that I gave scientific and medical evidence against marrying young girls. Zaatari responded in this way:

Also, Quennal and his Christians believe the prophet Muhammad is not a prophet just on the fact that he married Aisha at a young age, that is their main line of reasoning, ohhh how could he do it!!!

This is wrong: My main reason for rejecting Muhammad as a prophet isn't based on the fact that he married Aisha at a young age. I used this as a reason for not following Muhammad, but not as my main logical reason. You can view my site and see this for yourself. When Zaatari issues challenges such as this, he tends to try to put words in people’s mouths because it is much easier to refute what you assume you know about your opponent instead of actually studying their argument.

That’s what they always say. As we see, Quennal has no real arguments against it, all he has is a modern approach to it.

This is wrong: Zaatari is clearly basing his response on his own straw man. And to make it worse, he actually exposes himself as a fraud for trying to issue challenges he knows he can’t respond to:

So again I ask Quennal, bring me ONE valid argument against the marriage of Muhammad to Aisha in his time.

What does Zaatari constitute as valid? If you look at his original challenge it says “bring me one logical argument against the Prophet Muhammad's marriage with Aisha”. A logical argument unspecified can be anything I want it to be since Zaatari’s only criteria for acceptance is for it to be logical and to make sense. As you saw from my examples in the beginning of my paper, MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR OR AGAINST A PRACTICE is definitely considered logical and standard. However Zaatari has just contradicted his own challenge because he said:

Just one, he cannot bring this, oh yes, he will say ohh it’s medically bad.

Remember he wanted “ONE LOGICAL ARGUMENT”, unspecified from any parameter in which I can choose. When Zaatari got this from me, all he could do was say that, “ohh he’ll say it’s medically bad”, as if this is somehow illogical. If you don’t answer everything Zaatari asks you to answer he will say that you brushed it aside. However, it is okay for Zaatari to brush aside whatever he chooses EVEN IF IT WAS PROVEN TO BE LOGICAL ACCORDING TO HIS OWN CHALLENGE!

Did Zaatari ever prove that medical and scientific evidence is illogical? No.
Did Zaatari ever specify where you must go to get your logical argument? No.

Hence, if Zaatari’s challenge is answered then he needs to face the music. So notice Zaatari’s added criteria here:

If he does do that, then again, why doesn’t your Bible forbid marriage, and also why did Abraham marry his sister according to your Bible, which is medically very bad as well.

Notice that if I do answer his challenge, which would refute his argument, this still isn’t good enough for Zaatari. If the logical argument was presented against Muhammad, and science and medicine is obviously as logical as you can get, THEN HE HAS LOST THE CHALLENGE HANDS DOWN. Knowing this, Zaatari has to resort to asking, “does the Bible forbid this and why did Abraham marry his sister”. Again, the challenge wasn’t about asking us if the Bible forbade marriage or if Abraham married his sister but,

Now the problem for Zaatari is that Abraham, even though he serves as a model in Judaism or Christianity as well as in Islam, this doesn't mean that everything he did was exemplary. Nor does this mean that we view Abraham the same that Islam or Muslims view Muhammad. Secondly, the Quran doesn’t chastise Abraham for marrying his sister, which is also very medically bad. If Allah that such a practice was medically wrong, how come the Quran didn’t critique the biblical teaching that Abraham married his sister?

Last but not least, Zaatari actually refutes himself by saying:

not from a modernist point of view

Which would clearly mean that one shouldn’t use evidence from modern times after Islam. However this contradicts this statement:

but from the point of view of how society was in the time before, and AFTER the prophet Muhammad.

Modern times obviously means a period AFTER MUHAMMAD. Hence, Zaatari’s challenge actually leaves the door open for us to use evidence from modern times EVEN THOUGH HE CLAIMS THAT WE SHOULDN’T. In his haste to refute my paper Zaatari has posted challenges with self-refuting, contradictory information! As for his other challenge (which he will modify and reject any response to as well) Zaatari says this:

Then show me where it is forbidden to follow these rules in the OT, show me where it’s specifically disallowed to kill women and children in war.

First off, if you look at the passage Zaatari posted you would notice that God didn’t actually command the Hebrews to fight the people of Sihon:

Notice in this passage that:

1. God only said that he would allow the Hebrews to inherit Sihon’s land. God didn’t tell the Hebrews to go out and fight Sihon.

2. After being told that Sihon’s land would be inherited, SIHON AND ALL HIS PEOPLE CAME OUT AND ATTACKED THE HEBREWS! Hence, they begun the war.

3. After killing all of Sihon’s people WHO FOUGHT ALL TOGHETHER AT JAHAZ, the Hebrews were then able to take all the cities since all the enemy combatants (women, men, children) were killed in battle, in which Sihon came out and begun against the Hebrews.

Hence, God didn’t command the Hebrews to go and attack them, therefore there was no reason to prohibit something THAT WASN’T EXPLICITLY COMMANDED BY GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE. If Zaatari has problems about the Hebrews attacking people, which they didn’t in this case, then we can post tons of examples of Muhammad attacking other tribes whether they instigated it with the Muslims or not. It’s a losing battle for Zaatari. Nowhere in the verse does it say that God commanded the Hebrews to kill everyone or even to go to war in this instance. The Hebrews praised God for allowing the land to be delivered to them but if Zaatari wants to argue that these are commands HE NEEDS TO SHOW US WHERE GOD EXPLICITLY COMMANDED IT!

He Wrote

However, it can easily be shown, as we did above, that he is arguing from the above fallacies (appeal to pity, and ad novitatem) along with his opinion as some sort of establish criteria on ancient Biblical practices. If Zaatari wants to argue in this manner he either needs to validate his claim historically, in light of the context of Biblical practices or state that he is using his opinion. So far he has done neither. Arguing an opinion as a statement of fact only proves that it’s one opinion, no matter how intricate one tries to word their argument. Many Christians and non-Christians alike don’t view these actions as outright senseless violence because they are smart enough to know that each event needs to be judge in light of its historical context. In a nutshell, Zaatari has only exposed his emotions, that he feels angry at certain Biblical passages which disagree with how he expects God to run the world.

My Response

In a nut shell you have just exposed yourself, you are actually saying it is okay to kill women and children if the situation is just right, the fact you even try to claim that most Christians and non-Christians would agree to such sick acts is a lie. Most Christians object to this, and are shocked to find such filth in the Bible that they simply ignore it and say oh well that’s the OT, who cares. Non Christians use those passages to show what a violent book the Bible is, so hence you have no support really, only narrow minded people would actually stand and back up the killing of women in children. So you have shown you are an extremist, if the condition is right, then kill the women and the kids, that is what you are essentially saying.

Now tell me, in which historical context is it ever okay to slaughter women and children? I would love to know.

Response:

Again Zaatari is appealing to the emotion of the reader. It doesn’t matter if Christians object to certain passages in the Bible or if they view it as filth. This is nothing more than their opinion and it has no effect whatsoever on God’s purpose for the way of life. And yes, according to Zaatari’s own words, IF WOMEN AND CHILDREN ARE FIGHTING AGAINST THE SERVANTS OF GOD, THEN THEIR KILLING IS JUST. Remember that this is the position Zaatari himself took in reference to the tribe of Banu Qurasyh.

END of Part 1. Part 2 give here.

Home Back Home
New Articles Back to New Section